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.
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ABDUL SALAM AND Another1982 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerns a property dispute between the Punjab Road Transport Board and two private respondents, both claiming title to the same land through the Settlement Department. The core legal question was whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner could unilaterally cancel the respondents' Provisional Transfer Order and Permanent Transfer Deed without a hearing, and whether the underlying transfer of the property to the respondents was valid given the Board's prior claim. The Supreme Court held that while the Chief Settlement Commissioner acted correctly in ordering a probe into the conflicting claims under Section 20(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the cancellation of the respondents' documents without notice was legally unjustified. The Court clarified that the documents were merely suspended, not cancelled, and directed the Settlement Commissioner to conduct a fresh inquiry, allowing both parties to present their arguments before passing a final, speaking order. The principle established is that administrative cancellation of transfer documents involving competing claims requires a fair hearing to satisfy the requirements of natural justice.
Questions settled- Can a Chief Settlement Commissioner cancel a transfer document without providing a hearing to the affected party?
- Does the Settlement Commissioner have the authority to order a probe into conflicting claims where two parties hold transfer documents for the same property?
- Is an open site used as a bus stand transferable under the Earmarking Scheme for houses?
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD AND Another vs PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL1982 SCMR 76 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Punjab Road Transport Board against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside the Board's resolution annulling the promotion of respondent Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Shad to the post of Controller of Stores in N.P.S. 18, thereby restoring the promotion order passed by the Chairman of the Board. The core legal question revolved around the competence and jurisdiction of the Chairman of the Board to make the promotion order under the relevant rules, and whether the respondent's representation could be treated as an appeal against the Managing Director's refusal to promote. The Supreme Court held that under clause (7) of rule 14 of the Punjab Road Transport Board Rules, 1972, the Chairman could exercise powers delegated to a subordinate authority such as the Managing Director, and that the respondent's representation effectively constituted an appeal against the Managing Director's implicit refusal. The petition was accordingly dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decision.
Questions settled- Whether the Chairman of the Punjab Road Transport Board can exercise powers delegated to a subordinate authority under the Punjab Road Transport Board Rules, 1972?
- Can a representation against non-promotion be treated as an appeal where the subordinate authority has effectively refused promotion?
- Whether an objection not raised before the Service Tribunal can be urged for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal?
- PUNJAB PROVINCE vs Ulan AKBAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 198 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-07Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB PROVINCE vs Malik MUHAMMAD AZAM1982 CLC 1475 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB PROVINCE THROUGH COLLECTOR, SAHIWAL vs GULZAR AHMAD , .1982 PLC (C. S.) 254 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-04Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB PROVINCE ETC. vs Hafiz SULTAN MAHMOOD1982 CLC 169 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-10Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB FILMS vs Haji GETHA BHAI GOKHAL1982 CLC 720 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, LAHORE vs MESSRS1982 PLC 325 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-17Read full judgment →
- PUNHAL ETC. vs SECRETARY REVENUE, SINDH GOVERNMENT, Etc.1982 CLC 620 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-25Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB vs RAMZAN ALI KHAN ETC.S1982 SCMR 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by the Province of the Punjab challenging a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which granted four advance increments to Private Secretaries employed in the High Court, Lahore. Although the government circular specified certain designated posts for these increments, the Tribunal extended the benefit to the respondents based on an analysis of their actual duties, equating them to the designated categories. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to interpret a government circular in a manner that extends benefits to non-designated groups solely by reference to the duties performed, while disregarding the explicit designations, pay scales, and status defined in the circular. The Supreme Court held that the petition raised a substantial question of law regarding the Tribunal's power to interpret administrative circulars by subordinating status and pay scale to functional duties. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the scope of the Tribunal's interpretive authority in such service matters constitutes a significant legal issue requiring further adjudication. The impugned order was suspended pending the final appeal.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to extend the benefits of a government circular to non-designated groups based solely on the duties performed?
- Can a Service Tribunal subordinate considerations of pay scale and status when interpreting the applicability of a government circular?
- Does the interpretation of a government circular regarding the extension of benefits to non-designated employees constitute a substantial question of law under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- PROVINCE OF SIND AND ANOTHER vs S. ZAHEERUDDIN HUSSAIN1982 CLC 175 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-27Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF SIND AND Another vs MOHANDAS1982 PLD Supreme Court 220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the interpretation of the Sind Irrigation Act, 1879, specifically whether replacing a water module type constitutes a change in the 'source of water supply' under Section 91, thereby requiring prior notice to landowners. The respondent challenged the government's decision to convert watercourse modules, arguing it violated Section 91. The Supreme Court held that changing the type of module does not constitute a change in the 'source of water supply,' which refers to the origin of water flow rather than the mechanical outlet device. The Court clarified that the management of modules rests with the Government, provided the landowner receives their assured water supply. The Court established that Section 91 applies only to the diversion of water sources. If a modification to a module results in a diminution of water supply, the appropriate remedy is compensation or water rate remission under Section 31 of the Sind Irrigation Act, 1879, rather than the procedural notice requirements of Section 91. Consequently, the High Court's decision was set aside.
Questions settled- Does changing the type of a water module or outlet constitute a change in the source of water supply under Section 91 of the Sind Irrigation Act, 1879?
- Is a Canal Officer required to serve notice under Section 91 of the Sind Irrigation Act, 1879, when modifying the type of water outlet?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy for a landowner if a change in water module type results in a diminution of their assured water supply?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, Sh. MUHAMMAD YUSUF Ems vs Saved BASHIR A14MAD1982 PLD Supreme Court 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of multiple civil appeals arising from the nationalisation of privately managed schools and colleges in the Punjab under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 of 1972. The core legal questions were whether the Punjab Nationalised Schools (Men and Women Section) Teaching Posts Rules 1974 and the Nationalised Colleges (Men and Women Section) Teaching Posts Rules 1974 were ultra vires of paragraph 13 of MLR 118, and whether the decategorisation of headmasters and professors under these rules violated the guarantees in paragraph 7(2) of MLR 118. The Supreme Court held that the rules were validly made under paragraph 13 of MLR 118 as they aimed at the integration and merger of educational institutions. The Court further held that while paragraph 7(2) of MLR 118 guarantees comparable scales of pay based on equivalent qualifications, experience, and seniority, it does not guarantee the retention of specific posts or status. Consequently, the impugned rules decategorising certain staff were declared intra vires, and the contrary view in PLD 1977 Lah. 549 was overruled.
Questions settled- Whether rules regulating the recruitment and integration of nationalised teaching staff are within the rule-making scope of paragraph 13 of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 of 1972?
- Does paragraph 7(2) of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 of 1972 guarantee the retention of specific posts and status to teachers of nationalised institutions, or only comparable scales of pay?
- Can service rules that decategorise headmasters and professors be declared ultra vires if they protect comparable pay but alter the designation or status of the employees?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs Mst. BAKHAT BIBI1982 SCMR 1174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an application filed by the respondent in the main appeal seeking a direction to restrain the appellant Government from raising construction on the suit land measuring 42 kanals and 3 marlas, which was allegedly taken into possession by the Irrigation Department without acquisition proceedings. The core legal question concerns the propriety of continuing an interim stay order of execution granted in favor of the appellant Government when the Government subsequently hands over the disputed land to WAPDA for construction and fails to provide proper instructions through its counsel despite court directions. The Supreme Court held that the stay order granted in favor of the appellant Government must be vacated due to the lack of cooperation and proper instructions from the relevant authority regarding the legal status of the land acquisition. The key principle laid down is that interim protection granted to a government authority may be withdrawn if the authority fails to assist the court or comply with directions regarding the subject matter of the dispute.
Questions settled- Can an interim stay order of execution granted in favor of the Government be vacated when the Government fails to provide proper instructions to its counsel?
- What is the effect of handing over disputed land to a third party while a stay of execution is in operation before the Supreme Court?
- Whether the Supreme Court can withdraw interim relief when the appellant department fails to clarify the legality of possession and land acquisition.
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD SABIR ETC.S1982 SCMR 774 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Anjuman Taraqi-e-Taleem-e-Aama established Muslim High School and Muslim Model Girls' High School on government-leased land in Faisalabad, which were subsequently nationalized. The respondent, Ghulam Muhammad Sabir, claiming ownership of the property, initiated ejectment proceedings against the schools under rent restriction laws. Although the Rent Controller dismissed the applications, the appellate court accepted them. The Provincial Government's subsequent writ petitions were dismissed by the Lahore High Court, which declined to interfere in its writ jurisdiction. The Provincial Government sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerns whether the respondent could legally assert ownership or landlord status over the property, given the specific conditions of the government land grant prohibiting the assignment, subletting, or transfer of the land or buildings without prior written government permission, and the fact that the building plans were sanctioned in the name of the Anjuman. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these issues, maintaining the status quo in the interim.
Questions settled- Can a person claim ownership or landlord status over property built on government land when the grant explicitly prohibits transfer or assignment without government permission?
- Does the sanctioning of building plans in the name of an organization preclude an individual from claiming personal ownership of the property?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ETC. vs CIVIL JUDGE, LAHORE AND Other1982 SCMR 692 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Provincial Government against a High Court judgment dismissing its writ petition in a rent matter. A school taken over by the Government under nationalisation became a tenant of the premises, subsequently defaulted on rent payments, and attempted to defeat ejectment proceedings by having the property requisitioned. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment application due to lack of jurisdiction following the requisition, but the High Court later declared the requisition order mala fide and void. Upon remand, the Rent Controller and appellate authorities found the Government to be a wilful defaulter and ordered its eviction, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether a Government Department as a tenant can withhold rent based on departmental audit requirements and evade ejectment. The Supreme Court held that Government departments are subject to the same obligations as private tenants under rent laws and cannot impose unilateral conditions or evade rent payment due to internal administrative delays. The court affirmed the eviction order and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Is a Government Department as a tenant exempt from the application of urban rent restriction laws regarding default in rent payment?
- Can a Government Department withhold rent to a landlord on the ground of internal departmental audit procedures and non-production of taxation certificates?
- Whether an order of requisition obtained to defeat pending ejectment proceedings before a Rent Controller is mala fide?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH FINANCE SBCRETARY vs RAMZAN ALI KHAN1982 PLD Supreme Court 349 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which held that Private Secretaries employed in the Lahore High Court were entitled to the benefit of four advance increments granted by a Punjab Government circular dated January 15, 1981, to Stenographers and related personnel. The core legal question was whether the circular applied to the Private Secretaries based on the nature of their duties (as erstwhile Judgment Writers/Personal Assistants) or was restricted strictly to the designated posts enumerated in the circular, and whether the appeal raised a substantial question of law of general public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's finding that the Private Secretaries were essentially stenographers performing identical duties was a finding of fact and that the case did not involve a substantial question of law of general public importance, rendering the appeal incompetent.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal against the order of a Service Tribunal before the Supreme Court is competent without involving a substantial question of law of general public importance?
- Does a finding by a Service Tribunal that a particular post's duties are synonymous with another designated category constitute a question of fact?
- Whether the enumeration of specific posts following 'viz.' in a government circular necessarily excludes unmentioned categories regardless of the actual duties performed?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR, BAHAWALPUR vs Sufi HABIB1982 SCMR 243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the execution of a contract, where the respondent had applied under the Arbitration Act for referring the matter to arbitration. An award was rendered by the arbitrator, and the trial court subsequently passed a decree in terms of the award, which was upheld by the appellate court. However, the Lahore High Court accepted a revision petition, setting aside the lower courts' judgments and directing the trial court to appoint a new arbitrator. The High Court held that the award was laconic and silent as to its basis or reasons, making it legally ineffective. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in dismissing the petition, observed that while an arbitrator may not generally be obligated to provide reasons, where reasons are indeed given, they must be based upon the evidence produced and the applicable law. If the arbitrator fails to do so, the award is liable to be set aside.
Questions settled- Whether an arbitration award is liable to be set aside if the reasons provided by the arbitrator are not based upon the evidence produced and the applicable law?
- Can a court set aside an arbitration award on the ground that it is laconic and silent as to its basis or reasons?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 2 Others vs Ch. ZAHOOR ELAHI ETC.S1982 SCMR 173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for special leave to appeal arose out of concurrent judgments of the courts below which decreed the respondents' suits declaring the acquisition of their land under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 to be mala fide, illegal, and without jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the acquisition of land belonging to political opponents of the then government was vitiated by mala fides and political victimization. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact regarding mala fides, supported by robust oral and documentary evidence including direct testimony of political coercion by the high-ranking executive, will not be interfered with unless shown to be perverse or against the record. The key principle laid down is that a mala fide administrative act or statutory acquisition is fundamentally an act without jurisdiction and a fraud on the statute, and the Supreme Court is bound by concurrent findings of lower courts on questions of fact unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding mala fides in land acquisition proceedings can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Does a mala fide administrative act or statutory acquisition amount to an act without jurisdiction and a fraud on the statute?
- Whether the failure of a material official defendant to appear as a witness permits an adverse inference regarding the legitimacy of acquisition proceedings?
- PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN AND Another vs Malik Haji GUL HASSAN1982 PLD Quetta 52 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from arbitration proceedings regarding monetary claims under a public works contract. Following earlier incomplete arbitration and subsequent executive settlement, the parties referred the remaining items of dispute to a sole arbitrator. The arbitrator awarded compensation including protection charges and interest. The Senior Civil Judge modified the award by striking down the interest component for lack of statutory authority in the arbitrator and made the modified award a rule of the Court, prompting the provincial government's appeal. The High Court considered whether the arbitrator committed misconduct by failing to record written evidence, referring to prior expert reports, or awarding protection charges and interest, and whether the Court could award interest post-decree under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act. The High Court affirmed the judgment, holding that an arbitrator is not bound by judicial procedure, non-recording of oral evidence does not constitute misconduct, and protection charges were inherently linked to contractual payments. Modifying the decree, the High Court awarded six percent per annum simple interest from the date of the decree pursuant to Section 29 of the Arbitration Act.
Questions settled- Does an arbitrator commit legal misconduct by failing to reduce oral evidence into writing during arbitration proceedings?
- Does an arbitrator misconduct proceedings by examining prior unverified reports or discarded awards when deciding a dispute on the evidence led by the parties?
- Can a court modify an arbitration award by striking down an invalid interest component and instead grant interest from the date of the decree under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- PROJECT DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS NAWAB BROTHERS LTD1982 CLC 1147 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
- PROJECT DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS NAWAB BROTHER LTD1982 CLC 1147 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
- PROJECT AREA CO OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJABCO OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 704 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-27Read full judgment →
- PRINCE GLASS WORKS LTD. vs WORKERS WELFARE UNION1982 PLC 984 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
- Prevent : Aslam Riaz Hussain, Karam Elahee Chauhan And ADAM KHAN vs1982 PLD Supreme Court 120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a suit filed by the appellants seeking a declaration of exclusive ownership over certain land, asserting that the revenue entries classifying it as Shamilat-deh (common land) belonging to a 197-member proprietary body were incorrect. The trial court had granted permission under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to sue the entire proprietary body in a representative capacity through two designated representatives. After the District Judge dismissed the suit, the appellants filed a Regular Second Appeal in the High Court. During the appeal's pendency, one of the members of the proprietary body (defendant No. 1) died, and his legal representatives were not brought on record, leading the High Court to dismiss the appeal as abated in toto.
The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that under Order I Rule 8, CPC, the effective parties to a representative suit or appeal are the court-approved representatives, not the individual persons represented. Consequently, the death of an individual represented member does not cause the appeal to abate even if their legal representatives are not substituted.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal abates in toto upon the death of an individual represented person in a representative suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC if their legal representatives are not brought on record?
- Who are the effective parties to a suit or appeal conducted in a representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the retention of an individual represented person's name on the record make them a formal party requiring substitution of their legal representatives upon death?
- PORT QASIM AUTHORITY, KARACHI vs MESSRS NADEEM BROTHERS AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1506 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-05Read full judgment →
- PORT QASIM AUTHORITY, KARACHI vs MESSRS NADEEM BROTHER AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1506 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-05Read full judgment →
- PORT QASIM AUTHORITY vs GHULAM NABI1982 PLC 209 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
- POPAT vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 211 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-19Read full judgment →
- PIRTAJBAR SHAH (REPRESENTED BY HEIRS) vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB1982 SCMR 1010 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the ejectment of a tenant for wilful default in rent payment. The Rent Controller initially ordered the tenant's ejectment, a decision reversed by the District Judge on appeal, but subsequently restored by the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question was whether an unproved and disputed compromise deed, which was never incorporated into a court order, could be relied upon by the first appellate court to set aside the ejectment order. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the compromise deed was not legally admissible as evidence because it was never properly proved and had been explicitly objected to by the landlord's counsel during proceedings. The Court held that a document produced in court without being formally proved or accepted cannot be relied upon to alter the rights of parties. Consequently, the finding of wilful default in rent payment was maintained, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the tenant's obligation to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court rely on a compromise deed that was produced in court but never formally proved or incorporated into a court order?
- Does a document produced in court proceedings require formal proof if its admissibility is challenged by the opposing party?
- Is a tenant liable for ejectment if they fail to pay rent for the period preceding the institution of the ejectment application?
- PIRDINO AND ANOTHER vs Mst. KHURSHEED BEGUM1982 CLC 1927 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
- PIRAN DITTA vs Haji HABIB ASHRAF AND 3 Other1982 PLD Lahore 234 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-10Read full judgment →
- PIRAN DITTA vs CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY AND OTHERS1982 CLC 832 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
- PIRAN DITTA vs CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY AND OTHER1982 CLC 832 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
- PIR MUHAMMAD vs EDUCATION TOWN CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., LAHORE1982 SCMR 995 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption and was ordered to deposit Zar-e-Panjam. After multiple extensions were granted by the trial court, including permission to furnish a bank guarantee, the petitioner failed to deposit the amount within the extended time, leading to the rejection of the plaint. Subsequent appeals and a Regular Second Appeal were dismissed. The petitioner then filed a review application, which was also dismissed, followed by a petition for special leave to appeal. The Supreme Court addressed whether the petition was time-barred and if the delay could be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that the petition was time-barred as the review application lacked merit and was filed merely to gain time. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 was inapplicable because the review petition was not dismissed due to a defect of jurisdiction or a cause of a like nature. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, noting the petitioner's failure to comply with court orders despite receiving sufficient latitude.
Questions settled- Does the filing of a meritless review application extend the period of limitation for filing a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Is Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to a review petition dismissed on merits rather than for a defect of jurisdiction or similar cause?
- Can a court grant leave to appeal when the underlying petition is barred by limitation and the petitioner failed to comply with court-ordered deposits?
- PIR KHAN vs WORKS MANAGER, SIGNAL SHOP, (FOUNDRY) PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1982 PLC 48 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-01Read full judgment →
- Pir JALAL SHAH vs THE STATE1982 PLD Karachi 567 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses a confirmation case for a death sentence, an appeal against conviction, and a criminal revision arising from a joint trial of an adult and a minor accused for murder and robbery. The core legal question was whether the joint trial of a child accused with an adult accused, conducted after the extension of the Sind Children Act 1955 to the Karachi area, vitiated the entire trial under section 10 of the said Act, notwithstanding section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that section 10 of the Sind Children Act 1955 expressly prohibits the joint trial of a child with an adult, and this mandatory provision of a special law overrides general procedural provisions, rendering the joint trial illegal and incurable. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, disposed of the death sentence reference, and ordered a retrial of the accused persons separately in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does the joint trial of a child accused with an adult accused vitiate the trial under the Sind Children Act 1955?
- Is an illegality arising from the violation of section 10 of the Sind Children Act 1955 curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What constitutes a child under the Sind Children Act 1955 regarding age at the time of arrest or initiation of proceedings?
- Can a retrial be ordered against an accused whose trial was vitiated due to a misjoinder or joint trial violation?
- PIR INAYAT SHAH vs AGHA MUHAMMAD1982 SCMR 1195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the concurrent orders of the lower courts and the Rent Controller striking off his defence for failing to deposit rent in a timely manner. The core legal question concerns whether illness constitutes a valid ground to excuse a default in depositing rent as ordered by the Rent Controller when the tenant is capable of arranging alternative means for compliance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner's excuse of illness is untenable since personal appearance to deposit rent is not required by law, and the duty could have been fulfilled through family members or a servant. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that personal illness does not excuse statutory or directed deposit defaults where alternative modes of compliance are readily available.
Questions settled- Whether illness constitutes a valid ground for failing to deposit rent as directed by the Rent Controller?
- Does the law require a tenant to personally deposit rent in court?
- Whether the Rent Controller is justified in striking off the defence of a tenant who defaults in depositing rent without seeking condonation of delay?
- PIR BUX AND 3 OTHSRS vs Mst. ASMA BAI AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 1302 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
- PIR BUX AND 3 OTHERS vs Mst. ASMA BAI AND 2OTHERS1982 CLC 1302 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
- PIR BAKHSH AND 3 Others vs The STATE1982 SCMR 940 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reversed the trial court's acquittal of four petitioners, convicting them for various offenses arising from a fatal altercation. The petitioners were initially tried for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court, while acquitting three co-accused, convicted the four petitioners, finding that the injuries occurred during a sudden, unpremeditated fight. The petitioners challenged this conviction, arguing that the investigation was flawed, the fight lacked motive, and the prosecution relied on biased, inter-related witnesses. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to two of the petitioners, Pir Bakhsh and Muhammad Akram, while simultaneously granting them bail. However, the Court subsequently clarified that the petition for leave to appeal and bail could not be entertained for the remaining two petitioners, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Hanif, as they had not surrendered to the court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition regarding the latter two was dismissed, restricting the relief granted to the first two petitioners only.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be entertained by the Supreme Court if the petitioners have not surrendered to the court's jurisdiction?
- Does the grant of bail and leave to appeal automatically apply to all co-petitioners if some have failed to surrender?
- PIONEER STEEL MILLS LTD. AND 2 Other vs MUHAMMAD USMAN AND 26 Other1982 PLD Lahore 744 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
- PIONEER STEEL MILLS EMPLOYEES' UNION vs PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR1982 PLC 256 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-21Read full judgment →
- PHOOL MUHAMMAD vs ABDUL GHAFFAR1982 CLC 2575 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an order of the Rent Controller directing a landlord to provide a room in a newly constructed building to a tenant, based on a private compromise agreement. The core legal question was whether the tenant’s application under Section 13(5-B) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, was maintainable. The Court held that the application was incompetent. Firstly, the statutory conditions for Section 13(5-B) were unmet: the landlord had not obtained possession under Section 13(2)(vi), and the application was filed after the building's completion. Secondly, the Court affirmed that a compromise order is executable as a decree under Section 17 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, making the Rent Controller’s intervention via Section 13(5-B) improper. Furthermore, the Court held that upon the repeal of the old Ordinance by the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the pending application became non-maintainable as the new law lacked a corresponding provision to Section 13(5-B). Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and the impugned order was set aside.
Questions settled- Can a tenant invoke Section 13(5-B) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, if possession was obtained through a private compromise rather than an order under Section 13(2)(vi)?
- Is a compromise order passed by a Rent Controller executable as a decree under Section 17 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does a pending application under the repealed Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, remain maintainable if the new Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, contains no corresponding provision?
- Petitioner vs SUI GAS AUTHORITY1982 CLC 883 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
- Petitioner In Person. vs NOT1982 PLD Karachi 293 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
- PERVEZ KHAN BAHADUR THE STATE vs KHAN BAHADUR AND 3 Other THE STATE1982 SCMR 337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-23Read full judgment →
- PEERO vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 795 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition was filed under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the petitioner's conviction under Section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was originally tried for offences under Sections 323 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the appellate court ultimately maintained his conviction under Section 323, which is a non-cognizable offence. The core legal question was whether the police had the authority to investigate a non-cognizable offence without the prior permission of a competent Magistrate, and whether a trial court could take valid cognizance of a case based on such an unauthorized police report. The High Court held that Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 strictly prohibits police officers from investigating non-cognizable cases without a Magistrate's order. Consequently, the unauthorized investigation was a nullity, and the resulting police report could not form a valid basis for taking cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court quashed the proceedings and set aside the conviction.
Questions settled- Can a police officer investigate a non-cognizable offence without the prior order of a competent Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a police report resulting from an unauthorized investigation into a non-cognizable offence be treated as a valid complaint or information for the purpose of taking cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the definition of a complaint under Section 4(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 include a report submitted by a police officer?
- PAUJI SUGAR MILLS EMPLOYEES' UNION vs MESSRS FAUJI SUGAR MILLS LTD.1982 PLC 246 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-01Read full judgment →
- PARKE DAVIS & Co. LTD., KARACHI vs BLISS & Co. LTD., KARACHI1982 PLD Karachi 94 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed by the Creditors for the winding-up of the Company under the Companies Act, 1913, on the grounds of the Company's inability to pay its debts and that it would be just and equitable to wind it up. The core legal question was whether the Company's failure to pay the outstanding debt, despite statutory notice, warranted a winding-up order, particularly when the Company alleged a bona fide dispute and had initiated separate litigation for damages. The Court held that the Company was unable to pay its debts and ordered its winding-up. The Court established that while a bona fide dispute regarding a debt may preclude a winding-up order, the mere filing of a civil suit does not automatically bar such proceedings. The Court must determine if the dispute is genuine or merely a 'cloak' to avoid payment. In this case, the Company failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute, and the outstanding liability far exceeded the Company's paid-up capital, confirming its insolvency and justifying the winding-up order.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of a civil suit by a company against its creditor automatically bar a winding-up petition?
- What is the effect of a company's failure to pay a debt after receiving a statutory notice under the Companies Act 1913?
- When can a court determine that a company's dispute regarding a debt is merely a 'cloak' to avoid payment?
- Is a company's inability to pay its debts presumed upon failure to comply with a statutory notice?
- PAN ISLAMIC STEAMSHIP CO. LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI (WEST), KARACHI46 TAX 31 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN, ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL CONSTRUCTORS LTD. vs MEMBER1982 PLC 574 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN WAREHOUSE CARRIERS WORKERS UNION AND ANOTHER vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR COURT NO. V, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC 528 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-11Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2495 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH BAJWA1982 PLD Supreme Court 347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for Leave to Appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against a judgment of the Services Tribunal. The core legal question involves the computation of the limitation period for filing such a petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petitioner contended that the 50-day period taken by the Tribunal to transmit a copy of the judgment to the department should be excluded from the limitation period under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908. Conversely, the respondent argued that Section 12 only permits the exclusion of time 'requisite for obtaining' a copy, and that the petition was filed beyond the prescribed 60-day limit. The Court, without reaching a final holding on the merits, identified that the matter required further consideration regarding the interpretation of Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 and the Supreme Court Rules. Consequently, the Court directed the Advocate General for Punjab to assist in resolving the dispute regarding the computation of time for filing the petition.
Questions settled- Does the time taken by a Services Tribunal to provide a copy of its judgment to a department qualify as 'time requisite for obtaining a copy' under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Is the period of limitation for filing a petition for Leave to Appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 computed from the date of the announcement of the judgment or from the date of receipt of the certified copy?
- Can the time spent by a department waiting for a Tribunal to send a judgment copy be excluded from the limitation period prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules?
- PAKISTAN TOILET WORKS vs INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER45 TAX 222 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-23Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD. vs PAKISTAN CIGARETTE LABOUR UNION ,1982 PLC 514 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-17Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD. vs PAK. CIGARETTE LABOUR UNION1982 PLC 835 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN THRUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE vs L/NK. SARDAR ALI1982 PLD Supreme Court 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside the conviction of two West Pakistan Rangers members. The core legal question was whether 'prior sanction' from the Director-General is mandatory under Section 19 of the West Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, when a member of the Force is tried by a Commandant invested with magisterial powers under Section 20. The Supreme Court held that the requirement for prior sanction under Section 19 applies exclusively when a member of the Force is prosecuted before a court other than one constituted under Section 20. When the trial is conducted by a Commandant or officer invested with magisterial powers under Section 20, no such prior sanction is required. The Court reasoned that Section 19 serves to regulate jurisdiction when 'outsider' courts try Force members, rather than restricting the internal disciplinary jurisdiction of officers empowered under Section 20. The High Court’s interpretation erroneously conflated administrative dismissal consequences with procedural requirements for prosecution. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, affirming that the trial by the Commandant was legally valid.
Questions settled- Is prior sanction from the Director-General required under Section 19 of the West Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, when a member of the Force is tried by a Commandant invested with magisterial powers under Section 20?
- Does the requirement for prior sanction under Section 19 of the West Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, apply to trials conducted by courts other than those constituted under Section 20?
- Can a member of the Force be tried for an offence under the West Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, without prior sanction if the trial is held before a court constituted under Section 20?
- PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN, RAILWAYS vs THE PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No.1982 CLC 711 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an order of the Punjab Labour Court, which had upheld an authority's decision under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, directing the petitioner to pay wages and compensation to a reinstated employee. The petitioner contended that the compensation awarded exceeded the statutory limit prescribed for delayed wages. The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing that the petition was infructuous because the petitioner had already voluntarily paid the full amount, that the petition was barred by laches, and that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands by failing to disclose the prior payment while seeking an interim order. The Court held that even if an impugned order is alleged to be without jurisdiction, a writ petition may be dismissed if the petitioner is estopped by their conduct, has failed to approach the court with clean hands, or is guilty of laches. Consequently, the Court upheld the preliminary objections and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that equitable relief under writ jurisdiction is discretionary and dependent on the petitioner's conduct.
Questions settled- Can a writ petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches and conduct even if the impugned order is alleged to be without jurisdiction?
- Does the voluntary payment of an awarded amount by a petitioner render a subsequent writ petition against that award infructuous?
- Is a petitioner who fails to disclose the payment of an awarded amount in their writ petition entitled to equitable relief?
- PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION LTD. vs BABAR ZAMAN AND 3 Other1982 SCMR 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment concerning disciplinary proceedings against Pakistan Television Corporation (PTC) employees. The core legal questions involve whether the PTC Employees' Service Rules, 1978, were validly framed by a Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission authorized by the Chairman, and whether the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, applies to PTC, thereby mandating strict compliance with its disciplinary timelines. The High Court had previously held the rules ultra vires, reasoning that the Chairman could not delegate rule-making authority to a Member. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the PTC Service Rules were competently framed and whether the rule 2(b) of the Pakistan Essential Services Maintenance Rules, 1962, which permits such delegation, is legally valid. The case addresses the principle of sub-delegation of legislative power and the exclusion of general industrial standing orders where specific statutory service rules govern an establishment.
Questions settled- Are the PTC Employees' Service Rules, 1978, validly framed if enacted by a Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission authorized by the Chairman?
- Does the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, apply to establishments governed by the Pakistan Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1952?
- Can a delegatee of the Federal Government further delegate rule-making powers to a subordinate authority?
- PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION AND 2 OTHERS vs GHULAM AHMED1982 PLC 233 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-05-27Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD. vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS1982 PLC 539 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN STEEL FABRICATING CO. LTD, KARACHI vs ZIAUDDIN1982 PLC 132 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN SPORTS CO OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LTD. vs Kh. MUHAMMAD1982 SCMR 1175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated by the respondent against the petitioner society regarding two rooms in a building. The petitioner challenged the ejectment, denying the landlord-tenant relationship and asserting that the property in question was part of an industrial concern it had purchased at auction, alleging the respondent's Permanent Transfer Order (P.T.O.) was obtained through fraud. The Rent Controller, the District Judge, and the High Court all ruled against the petitioner, affirming the ejectment. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller could look behind a valid, subsisting P.T.O. to determine title or validity of transfer. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller is bound by the P.T.O. and lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity or correctness of such a transfer document. The Court further held that as long as a P.T.O. remains uncancelled and its operation unsuspended, it must be acted upon. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the petitioner's contentions regarding title were outside the scope of ejectment proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller adjudicate upon the validity or correctness of a Permanent Transfer Order in an ejectment proceeding?
- Is a Rent Controller bound to act upon a Permanent Transfer Order that has not been cancelled or suspended?
- Does a party have the right to challenge the title of a landlord based on a Permanent Transfer Order within summary ejectment proceedings?
- PAKISTAN SHIPPING CORPORATION AND Another vs RUSTOM F. COWASJEE1982 PLD Lahore 671 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This intra-court appeal concerns the acquisition of a shipping establishment by the Federal Government under the Pakistan Maritime Shipping (Regulation and Control) Act, 1974. The core legal questions involved the determination of "Net Worth Value" for compensation, the entitlement of the former owners to profits during the management takeover period, and the validity of government-directed revisions to audited balance sheets. The Court held that the government could not unilaterally direct auditors to reverse entries in a previously adopted audited balance sheet to artificially lower compensation. It ruled that the "Net Worth Value" must be determined based on the existing audited accounts. Furthermore, the Court held that the former owners were entitled to profits generated during the takeover period and to the recovery of amounts in their current accounts. The key principle laid down is that statutes authorizing the expropriation of property must be construed strictly, and administrative authorities must observe the principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of hearing to affected parties before making determinations that impact their property rights.
Questions settled- Can the Federal Government unilaterally direct auditors to reverse entries in an audited balance sheet to reduce compensation under the Pakistan Maritime Shipping (Regulation and Control) Act, 1974?
- Are former owners of a managed establishment entitled to profits earned during the period between the takeover of management and the acquisition of proprietary interests?
- Does the principle of natural justice require an administrative authority to provide a hearing to affected parties before determining compensation for acquired property?
- Can a partner of a firm be considered a creditor entitled to recover advances from the firm under the Pakistan Maritime Shipping (Regulation and Control) Act, 1974?
- PAKISTAN REFINERY LTD., KARACHI vs INDUS SHIPPING & TRADING Co. LTD., KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 750 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-02Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN REFINERY LTD., KARACHI vs INDUS SHIPPING & TRADING Co. LTD., KARACHI AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 750 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-02Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (COLLIERIES LTD.) vs AMIR1982 PLD Quetta 87 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal setting aside a Labour Court's dismissal of a claim for Group Insurance filed by an employee's heir. The core legal questions involve whether the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applies to establishments with statutory service rules under the control of the Federal or Provincial Government, and whether the limitation period and procedure under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 govern Group Insurance claims before the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The High Court held that the Standing Orders Ordinance does not apply where statutory service rules govern the employees of an establishment carried on under government authority, and that section 10-B(5) of the Standing Orders Ordinance borrows the Workmen's Compensation Act only for the limited purpose of determining and recovering compensation, rather than importing its limitation periods or ousting the Labour Court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the application was held to be time-barred under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and the Appellate Tribunal's order was declared without jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applies to industrial establishments carried on under the authority of the government where statutory rules of service apply?
- Does section 10-B(5) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 incorporate the entire provisions and limitation periods of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 into proceedings before the Labour Court?
- Is an application for the recovery of Group Insurance before the Labour Court subject to the limitation period prescribed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Do special tribunals possess inherent powers beyond the four corners of the statutes creating them?
- PAKISTAN LYALLPUR-SAMUNDRI TRANSPORT CO. LTD. LAHORE vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE46 TAX 143 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- SARDARA vs MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1159 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-29Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. vs MESSRS1982 CLC 1689 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-16Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN GENERAL INSURANCE Co. LTD., KARACHI vs MESSRS SEVEN STARS1982 PLD Karachi 549 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-13Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN GENERAL INSURANCE Co. LTD. vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1982 SCMR 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding an Execution First Appeal. The appellant had sought condonation of a 206-day delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal, claiming that the High Court judgment was announced without the issuance of a cause list. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the original register of the High Court and discovered that a cause list had indeed been issued and was duly pasted, containing the case details and the date of announcement. The core legal question was whether the order granting leave to appeal, which was predicated on an inaccurate factual representation regarding the absence of a cause list, could be sustained. The Supreme Court held that the leave to appeal was obtained based on an incorrect statement of fact. Consequently, the Court recalled the order granting leave and dismissed the appeal with costs. The principle laid down is that an order granting leave to appeal obtained through a misrepresentation of material facts is liable to be recalled.
Questions settled- Can an order granting leave to appeal be recalled if it was obtained based on an inaccurate statement of fact?
- Does the failure to verify the existence of a cause list justify the condonation of a significant delay in filing an appeal?
- PAKISTAN GENERAL INSURANCE Co. LTD. vs SEVEN STARS GOODS TRANSPORT1982 CLC 139 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-13Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER vs PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS SOCIETY EMPLOYEES' UNION AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 964 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-07-19Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN CYCLE INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. vs MUHAMMAD1982 PLC 1096 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN CYCLE INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. vs MUHAMMAD1982 PLC 758 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN CYCLE INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. vs MUHAMMAD1982 PLC 275 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-31Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN CYCLE INDUSTRIAL CO OPERATIVE SOCIETYLIMITED vs MUHAMMAD1982 SCMR 950 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal calls in question a judgment of the Lahore High Court that dismissed in limine a constitutional petition arising from labour proceedings. The petitioner-employer contended that the respondent-workman's services were terminated simply because he was unavailable for service due to imprisonment by a Military Court, and not due to participation in an illegal strike. The High Court, examining the record and witness statements, found that the termination based on physical imprisonment was merely a device to avoid holding a domestic inquiry and thus could not be construed as termination simpliciter, declining to interfere in its writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found the approach of the High Court unexceptionable, holding that no grounds were shown to interfere with the impugned order, and accordingly dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether termination of a workman's services on the ground of imprisonment can be construed as termination simpliciter when no domestic inquiry is held?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere in writ jurisdiction when the High Court's refusal to intervene in a labour matter is based on sound reasoning?
- PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL LTD. vs CENTRAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND 51982 PLD Karachi 33 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a challenge to an order by the Central Labour Commissioner reinstating employees of Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd., an entity governed by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The core legal question was whether the Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate individual industrial disputes under the Act, specifically regarding the scope of the power to 'regulate' wages and service conditions under Section 6. The Full Bench held that the power to 'regulate' does not encompass the authority to adjudicate or settle individual industrial disputes or grievances. The Court determined that the Act and its rules do not provide a machinery for such adjudication. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Commissioner cannot adjudicate industrial disputes. The key principle laid down is that the term 'regulate' in the Act implies a legislative or administrative power to set general rules and conditions, not a judicial or quasi-judicial power to resolve specific disputes between employers and employees. Thus, the jurisdiction of other forums remains intact where the Act does not explicitly provide a mechanism for dispute resolution.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of a notification under Section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, automatically render all other enactments inapplicable to an employment?
- Does the power to 'regulate' wages and conditions of service under Section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, include the power to adjudicate individual industrial disputes?
- Can the Central Labour Commissioner adjudicate an industrial dispute between an employer and an employee?
- To what extent does Section 7-A of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, exclude the jurisdiction of other labour forums?
- PAKISTAN AUTOMOBILE CORPORATION LIMITED AND Another vs GENERAL1982 PLD Karachi 796 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit arose out of an application for an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by state-controlled automobile corporations seeking to restrain Defendant No. 1 from revoking an Isuzu commercial vehicle franchise and transferring it to private-sector defendants. The plaintiffs contended that the franchise constituted an exclusive licence coupled with interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872 and that private assembly violated public policy under the Economic Reforms Order 1972. The High Court of Sindh made tentative findings that the original letter of intent granted a non-exclusive privilege and that the Economic Reforms Order 1972 did not expressly bar private enterprise in motor vehicle assembly, provided Federal Government permission was obtained. However, noting that Defendant No. 1 prematurely terminated the arrangement five months before the mutually understood run-out date of August 1981, threatening substantial capital losses on unsold inventory, the High Court suspended the operation of the termination notice pending regular hearing of the suit.
Questions settled- Whether the Economic Reforms Order 1972 expressly or impliedly prohibits private sector participation in motor vehicle assembling and manufacturing?
- Whether a non-exclusive franchise agreement constitutes a licence coupled with an interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872?
- Can a court suspend a notice of termination of a commercial agency via an interim injunction where premature termination threatens heavy financial losses on existing stock?
- PAKISTAN AGRICULTURAL STORAGE AND SERVICES CORPORATION LTD.1982 PLC 142 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-06-02Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN AGRICULTURAL STORAGE & SERVICES CORPORATION LTD. AND 21982 PLC 487 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-05Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN (PUNJAB PROVINCE) vs RIAZ ALI KHAN1982 SCMR 770 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court regarding the termination of service of a probationer. The core legal question is whether the termination of a probationer's service on the ground of unsatisfactory work constitutes removal or dismissal from service, thereby attracting constitutional protection. The Supreme Court held that the discharge of a probationer for unsatisfactory work does not amount to dismissal or removal from service, provided there is no latent stigma of misconduct, and such termination is in accordance with the terms of the contract or applicable rules. The Court laid down the principle that a probationer's service only attains a sure footing upon confirmation, and termination simpliciter for unsatisfactory work does not require constitutional safeguards.
Questions settled- Does the termination of a probationer's service on the ground of unsatisfactory work amount to removal or dismissal from service?
- Is a probationer entitled to constitutional protection against termination when discharged for unsatisfactory work without a stigma of misconduct?
- Does the discharge of a probationer in accordance with the terms of the contract or service rules require formal constitutional safeguards?
- PAK INDUSTRIAL & MINING SYNDICATE LTD. vs PAK INDUSTRIAL & MINING1982 PLC 250 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-10Read full judgment →
- PACKAGES LTD. vs PIR MUHAMMAD AND 11 Other1982 SCMR 716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case arises from an employer's challenge to the consolidation of several employee grievance petitions by a Labour Court. Ten employees dismissed for prolonged absence filed petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Labour Court consolidated the cases with the consent of the parties and ordered reinstatement without back benefits. The employer appealed for dismissal of back benefit appeals, while the Tribunal set aside the Labour Court's decision, holding it lacked inherent power under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to consolidate trials. The High Court reversed the Tribunal's decision, finding consolidation to be a procedural matter permitted under the law. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the consolidation of proceedings for a joint trial is a matter of procedure and an incidental or ancillary power enabling the tribunal to effectively exercise its statutory jurisdiction, rather than an exercise of inherent power. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that procedural consolidation done with consent is lawful and does not prejudice the merits.
Questions settled- Whether a Labour Court has the power to consolidate multiple petitions for a joint trial?
- Is the consolidation of several suits or petitions for the purpose of a joint trial strictly a matter of procedure?
- Whether the power to regulate its own procedure is incidental or ancillary to the main jurisdiction of a statutory tribunal?
- P. I. D.0 LARKANA SU GAR MILLS AND ANOTHER vs EMPLOYEES' UNION AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 779 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-25Read full judgment →
- OUEST, KEEN AND NETTLEFOLDS (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs ARIF HUSSAIN1982 PLC 241 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-15Read full judgment →
- OSCAR DANIAL vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL, SHEIKHUPURA, Etc1982 CLC 543 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-24Read full judgment →
- ORIENTAL SHIPPING Co. LTD. vs M.V. MONTE CRISTO PANAMIAN FLAG ETC.1982 CLC 619 · Balochistan High Court · -Read full judgment →
- N/A vs Not Found45 TAX 43 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-23Read full judgment →
- NUZHAT MAJID vs Mst. MEHRAJ BEGUM AND OTHER1982 CLC 1746 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-24Read full judgment →
- NUZHAT MAJID vs Mst MEHRAJ BEGUM AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1746 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-24Read full judgment →
- NUSRAT ALI ABBASI vs MASOOD ALI QURESHI1982 PLD Karachi 712 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
- NURA vs SAMAND1982 PLD Lahore 647 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
- NUR AHMAD vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL1982 SCMR 453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld an Election Tribunal's decision disqualifying the petitioner from holding office as a member of the Town Committee, Renala Khurd. The core legal question was whether a contract held by the petitioner for the disposal of sullage water from the Town Committee constituted a disqualifying 'contract for work to be done' under the relevant election laws. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the disqualification. The Court held that the contract, which involved mutual obligations and the performance of a public duty regarding the disposal of sullage water, fell within the scope of the disqualifying provision. The Court established that the term 'work' in the context of election disqualification clauses is not restricted to construction or building projects but encompasses any engagement in the performance of a task or duty where there is mutuality of obligation between the candidate and the local body, aiming to prevent conflicts of interest in public service.
Questions settled- Does a contract for the disposal of sullage water with a local body constitute a disqualifying contract under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Is the term 'work to be done' in an election disqualification clause restricted to construction and building projects?
- What are the essential elements of a contract that creates a disqualification for an elected official under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- NUR AHMAD vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE SAHIWAL1982 PLD Lahore 123 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-17Read full judgment →
- NOT vs NOT45 TAX 43 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-23Read full judgment →
- NOORA AND Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 567 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-11Read full judgment →