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.
- NOOR MUHAMMAD, ETC. SHER MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE NOOR MUHAMMAD1982 SCMR 1200 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 609 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND Other1982 SCMR 900 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the resumption of a Lambardari grant following the petitioner's removal from the position of Lambardar. The core legal question was whether the petitioner acquired a vested ownership right in the Lambardari square land merely by depositing the purchase price while his appointment as Lambardar was subject to ongoing litigation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner did not acquire any vested right in the land. The Court reasoned that, pursuant to the 1954 instructions contained in the Colony Manual, any price deposited for a Lambardari grant during pending litigation must be held in a suspense account and only credited upon the finality of the appointment. Consequently, because the petitioner's appointment did not reach finality, the deposit did not confer ownership. The Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, establishing the principle that a Lambardari grant is contingent upon the finality of the appointment, and deposits made during pending litigation do not create vested property rights under the doctrine of lis pendens.
Questions settled- Does the deposit of the price of a Lambardari square during pending litigation regarding the Lambardar's appointment confer vested ownership rights upon the depositor?
- Under the 1954 instructions in the Colony Manual, how must the Collector treat the price of a Lambardari grant received while the appointment is subject to litigation?
- Can a Lambardar claim ownership of a Lambardari grant if their appointment is ultimately set aside?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs MOHAMMAD QAYOOM1982 CLC 253 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs JANMUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1982 P Cr. L J 935 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-16Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Etc.S vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION1982 CLC 781 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-22Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD ETC. vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION1982 CLC 781 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-22Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD AND Others vs SHER MUHAMMAD1982 CLC 2397 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-26Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD AND Others vs MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND Other1982 SCMR 538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of civil petitions for special leave to appeal concerning the right of pre-emption over disputed land and potential exemption under a relevant notification of the Bahawalpur Government. The core legal questions involve determining whether the subject land was exempt from pre-emption and resolving an alleged conflict between two previous judgments of the Court, specifically Mst. Rehmat Bibi v. Nathe Khan and others and Sher Muhammad and others v. Abdul Khaliq and others. The Court granted leave to consider these matters and directed that a status quo regarding possession shall continue, subject to the petitioners furnishing security for mesne profits and undertaking to voluntarily surrender the land if the appeal is ultimately dismissed. The principle established relates to the examination of pre-emption rights and exemptions under regional governmental notifications, alongside the reconciliation of conflicting precedents.
Questions settled- Whether the land in dispute was subject to pre-emption or was exempted under the notification of the Bahawalpur Government?
- Is there any conflict between the judgments reported as Mst. Rehmat Bibi v. Nathe Khan and others and Sher Muhammad and others v. Abdul Khaliq and others?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD AND Others vs Mst. NIZAM BIBI1982 CLC 2208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of pre-emption suits for failure to pay the requisite court-fee. The plaintiffs had filed suits with a nominal court-fee, undertaking to pay the deficiency based on net profits, but failed to do so by the date fixed by the trial court. The trial court dismissed the suits under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The District Judge and the High Court subsequently set aside this dismissal, directing the trial court to first quantify the specific court-fee amount before granting time for payment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the lower appellate courts erred in interfering with the trial court's order. The Court emphasized that where a plaintiff fails to pay the court-fee within the time granted and fails to seek an extension or provide a valid explanation for the delay, the suit is liable to be rejected. The principle established is that a plaintiff cannot be granted indefinite time to pay court-fees, and a vested right of limitation accruing to the defendant cannot be lightly disregarded due to the plaintiff's negligence.
Questions settled- Does a trial court have the authority to reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a plaintiff fails to pay the required court-fee within the time granted?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to an indefinite extension of time to pay court-fees in a pre-emption suit?
- Can an appellate court interfere with a trial court's order rejecting a plaint for non-payment of court-fee where the plaintiff offered no explanation for the delay before the trial court?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD AND Another vs EXTRA ASSISTANT COLONIZATION1982 SCMR 431 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was directed against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional writ petition. The core dispute pertained to whether the petitioners held the subject land as legitimate allottees under the Ejected Tenants Scheme or had obtained entries fraudulently following a temporary lease. The Collector, upon reviewing the records, found that the entries were fraudulent, ordered resumption of the land, and this finding was consistently upheld by the Additional Commissioner, the Board of Revenue, and the High Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that factual findings of fraud based on evidence and rendered by authorities with competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered with. Furthermore, the Supreme Court declined to entertain arguments concerning prior adjudication and protection under Section 16 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912, as these points were not raised or argued before the High Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent factual findings of fraud established before revenue authorities can be interfered with by the High Court in writ jurisdiction?
- Can a party raise a new factual or legal argument before the Supreme Court if it was not raised or pressed before the High Court or Board of Revenue?
- Does Section 16 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 protect a possessor whose allotment entries are found to be fraudulent?
- NOOR MUHAM MAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, CHIEF ACCOUNTS1982 CLC 2570 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-04Read full judgment →
- NOOR ELAHI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1343 · Lahore High Court · 1966-12-22Read full judgment →
- NOOR DIN vs ASHIQ ALI Arm 3 OTHER1982 CLC 897 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-21Read full judgment →
- NOOR DIN vs ASHIQ ALI AND 3 OTHERS1982 CLC 897 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-20Read full judgment →
- NOOR ALI (REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS) vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND Other1982 SCMR 959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the orders of the High Court dated 13-3-1975 and 1-4-1975, which had set aside an order of the Settlement Commissioner regarding the joint transfer of disputed land. The core legal question concerns whether a party, having initially consented to a joint proposal and confirmation of land in 1962, can subsequently challenge the joint transfer after getting their claim independently verified years later. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, affirming that a subsequent separation of claims does not render a prior valid confirmation illegal, especially when the party was present and raised no objection at the time of the joint confirmation. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot invalidate a past consensual and valid joint transfer of land merely by taking subsequent steps to separate their underlying claims.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge a joint transfer of land on the ground of a subsequent separation of claims after having consented to the initial joint confirmation?
- Whether a revision against an order dismissing an appeal as time-barred can sustain a challenge to a long-standing joint land transfer?
- NOOR AKBAR BUCHA vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 944 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMAD AND Another vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 214 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arose from the dismissal of the petitioners' pre-arrest bail application by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, under Section 498-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to their non-appearance, allegedly caused by police surrounding the court compound. The core legal question concerned the proper application and interpretation of Section 498-A, particularly regarding an accused's absence and the requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity to show cause before dismissing a bail petition. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court passed a hasty and sketchy order without lawfully disposing of the application, as it failed to provide the petitioners a reasonable opportunity to explain their absence in accordance with established precedent and rules of natural justice. The court laid down the principle that subordinate courts must rigidly follow binding precedents of superior courts under Article 201 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and that an accused seeking pre-arrest bail must be given a fair hearing and opportunity to show cause for any non-appearance before penal consequences under Section 498-A are invoked.
Questions settled- Whether an accused seeking pre-arrest bail must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to show cause for his absence before a bail petition can be dismissed under Section 498-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is it mandatory for subordinate courts to rigidly follow the principles of law laid down by superior courts pursuant to Article 201 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- What is the legal effect of an accused surrendering to the jurisdiction of the court in a pre-arrest bail matter regarding the status of custodia legis?
- NOOK MUHAMMAD AND 10 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 239 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-31Read full judgment →
- NOABAT AND Other vs THE STATE1982 PLD Karachi 502 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-17Read full judgment →
- NIZAMUDDIN vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, SUKKUR ZONE AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 839 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMED SHEIKH vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION1982 PLC 236 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-07Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1982 PLC 86 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD SHEIKH vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS1982 PLC (C. SO 396 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD SHEIKH vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND 111982 PLD Supreme Court 357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a temporary Assistant Engineer who was promoted as an officiating Executive Engineer and initially allocated to the North-West Frontier Province upon the dissolution of West Pakistan, sought and obtained a transfer to the Province of Punjab subject to the express written condition that he would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list. Subsequently, after several conflicting service tribunal decisions and seniority lists, the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal against a seniority list placing him junior to the respondents, holding him bound by his accepted condition of transfer. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's movement was a transfer upon his own request rather than an allocation under the West Pakistan (Dissolution) Order, 1970, and that rules governing inter-provincial transfers empowered the competent authority to relegate the transferred officer to the bottom of the seniority list. The key principles laid down are that a government servant transferred between provinces on their own request is bound by lawful conditions of seniority agreed upon, and previous tribunal orders obtained without knowledge of crucial facts do not create a past and closed transaction barring rectification.
Questions settled- Whether a government servant transferred from one province to another at his own request is entitled to retain his original seniority without regard to conditions accepted upon transfer?
- Does a service tribunal decision obtained without knowledge of true factual conditions constitute a past and closed transaction that binds the government?
- Whether the dissolution of the Province of West Pakistan under President's Order No. 1 of 1970 precludes a provincial government from imposing conditions regarding seniority on a subsequent inter-provincial transfer?
- NIGHAT YASMIN vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH AND 3 OTHER1982 CLC 188 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-27Read full judgment →
- NIGHAT YAR KHAN vs HAMIDA KHATOON1982 CLC 593 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-22Read full judgment →
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD vs Mst. TABI AND Other1982 SCMR 1003 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee shop. The core legal question was whether an auction sale of the shop, conducted after the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had explicitly ordered its deletion from the auction list, could confer valid title upon the auction purchaser. The respondent had obtained an order transferring the shop to her, which included a directive to remove the property from the auction list. Despite this, the shop was auctioned to the opposing party. The Supreme Court held that once the Deputy Settlement Commissioner issued a valid order deleting the property from the auction list, the subsequent auction was legally void and could not confer any rights upon the purchaser. The Court emphasized that the validity of the transfer order to the respondent remained intact, rendering the subsequent auction proceedings ineffective. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the lower settlement authorities and the High Court, restoring the original transfer order in favour of the respondent, thereby upholding the rights of the appellant as an associate transferee.
Questions settled- Does an auction sale of property remain valid if it occurs after the competent authority has ordered the property's deletion from the auction list?
- Can a Deputy Settlement Commissioner issue a valid order to delete a property from an auction list?
- Does an auction purchaser acquire legal rights if the property was not legally available for auction at the time of the bid?
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), HYDERABAD1982 CLC 2202 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD AND Others vs ABDUL AZIZ AND Other1982 SCMR 883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a dispute regarding the inheritance of a claimant displaced person, Abdul Hafiz Khan, under the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act. The core legal controversy concerned the paternity of Mst. Sakina, specifically whether she was the daughter of the deceased. An initial order by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner declared she was not the daughter, but this was reversed on appeal by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Capt. Jamshed Burki, who held she was indeed the daughter. A subsequent revision by the Settlement Commissioner set aside this order, claiming the Additional Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to hear a second appeal. The Lahore High Court, however, determined that Capt. Jamshed Burki’s order was actually a valid exercise of revisional jurisdiction, thereby declaring the Settlement Commissioner's interference unlawful. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the petitioner conceded the jurisdictional point. The Court held that findings of fact regarding paternity, once determined by a competent revisional authority, are not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction, particularly when no compelling circumstances exist to depart from this established rule.
Questions settled- Can a finding of fact determined by a competent revisional authority be interfered with in writ jurisdiction?
- Does an Additional Settlement Commissioner have the authority to treat an appeal as a revision if the original order was passed by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner?
- Is a Settlement Commissioner's order setting aside a decision of an Additional Settlement Commissioner lawful if the Additional Settlement Commissioner acted within his revisional jurisdiction?
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD AND Another vs THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, SUKKURAND ANOTHER1982 P Cr. L J 192 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- NIAZ ALI vs FAIZ MUHAMMAD1982 CLC 850 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
- NIAZ AHMED USMANI vs Syed MOHAMMED ALI1982 CLC 682 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
- NIAZ AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 5 OTHERS1982 CLC 1280 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-15Read full judgment →
- NIAZ AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 5 OTHER1982 CLC 1280 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-15Read full judgment →
- NIAZ AHMAD vs JAT AND Other1982 SCMR 700 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against an order of the Lahore High Court whereby the conviction of the respondents under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code was altered to one under section 304(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code with a reduction in sentence. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence and properly applied Exception I to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code based on grave and sudden provocation arising from an alleged illicit relationship. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's evaluation of the evidence was proper and that the defence version establishing grave and sudden provocation was probable. The key principle laid down is that where the defence version of sudden provocation is found probable upon a careful appraisal of the evidence, the conviction may appropriately be altered from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on grave and sudden provocation?
- Does the acceptance of a probable defence version warrant the application of Exception I to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's appraisal of evidence when the conclusions drawn are found to be proper?
- NIAMAT vs The STATE1982 SCMR 1052 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 26-3-1980, which upheld his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and altered his sentence from death to life imprisonment. The petitioner was tried along with four others for the murder of Ahmad Din, but the trial court and the High Court acquitted the co-accused, relying solely on the recovery of a blood-stained datar as corroboration to sustain the petitioner's conviction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the recovery of the weapon, which was found in an accessible place and exposed to the elements for a prolonged period, along with other alleged flaws in the investigation and chain of custody, constituted sufficient and safe corroboration to maintain the conviction. The Supreme Court held that the question of whether necessary corroboration was forthcoming required detailed examination to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice, and accordingly granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the recovery of a weapon from an accessible place exposed to weather elements can serve as sufficient corroboration for a murder conviction?
- Does the reliance on interested eye-witnesses necessitate independent and reliable corroboration to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether flaws in the investigation and missing links in sending a recovered weapon to the Chemical Examiner vitiate the evidentiary value of such recovery?
- NEW JUBILEE INSURANCE EMPLOYEES' UNION vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE1982 PLC 1012 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
- NEW JUBILEE INSURANCE EMPLOYEES UNION vs NEW JUBILEE INSURANCE Co.1982 PLC 126 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
- NEMAT KHAN (REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIR) vs ABADAN KHAN AND Other1982S C M R 465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning a dispute over the allotment of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether a subsequent increase in Produce Index Units credited to the petitioners could retrospectively affect or deprive the respondents of a permanent land allotment validly made to them earlier. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition in limine, upholding the judgment of the Lahore High Court. The Court held that a permanent allotment of land made against a verified claim on a specific date cannot be disturbed or adversely affected by subsequent increases in units credited to another party at a later date, as the prior allotment had already attained finality and vested rights had been acquired. The key principle laid down is that subsequent administrative adjustments or increase in entitlement units cannot operate retrospectively to divest a citizen of a valid property right previously secured through a competent authority.
Questions settled- Can a subsequent increase in Produce Index Units operate retrospectively to deprive a person of a permanent land allotment made earlier?
- Does an initial order of land allotment attaining finality protect the allottee from subsequent adjustments based on later unit increases?
- Can limitation be pleaded against an allottee whose validly allotted land is sought to be withdrawn by a void subsequent order?
- NEK ALAM vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 352 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
- NAZIRUDDIN vs Hafiz MUNIRUDDIN1982 CLC 995 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-19Read full judgment →
- NAZIR HUSSAIN vs ZIAUL HAQ AND OTSHERS1982 SCMR 1145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from a High Court order granting bail to respondents despite a prior refusal of bail by the Supreme Court on the merits of the case. The core legal questions addressed by the Supreme Court involve the competency of a High Court Single Judge to grant bail on merits after the Supreme Court has already refused it, and whether a plea for bail based on delay is strictly governed by the statutory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or if it can be granted as a general consideration independent of those provisions. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine these issues, specifically focusing on the scope of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The proceedings were directed to be prepared for a hearing to determine if the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction or misapplied the statutory criteria for bail in cases involving prior Supreme Court intervention and claims of delay.
Questions settled- Is a High Court judge competent to grant bail on merits after the Supreme Court has previously refused bail on the same merits?
- Does the proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exclusively govern bail pleas based on delay?
- Can bail be granted on the ground of delay independently of the statutory provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- NAZIR BEG AND Another vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1982 PLD Lahore 40 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 318 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
- NAZIR ALI vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, JHELUM AND 4 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 115 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-01-02Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AIMED vs FATEH MUHAMMAD AND Other1982 SCMR 696 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld the orders of the Member, Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner regarding a pre-emption suit. The petitioner, a tenant claiming pre-emption rights over a portion of sold land, challenged an appellate remand order and a point of limitation. The core legal questions involved whether an appellate court's remand order was open to constitutional scrutiny when no final order had been passed, and whether a plea of limitation not raised before the lower appellate forum could be entertained in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no illegality in declining to interfere with a remand order in its discretionary jurisdiction, noting that the trial court was empowered to re-examine the issues on merits. The petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed with a direction for expeditious disposal.
Questions settled- Can a plea of limitation not raised before the lower appellate authority be entertained in writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether a remand order passed by an appellate revenue authority is open to interference in constitutional jurisdiction before a final decision is rendered by the trial court?
- NAZIR AHMED vs The STATE1982 SCMR 939 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Circuit, wherein the sentence of death of the appellants was altered to life imprisonment. Leave to appeal having been granted on 20-3-1978, the petitioners filed a miscellaneous application seeking the suspension of their sentence and release on bail pending the hearing of the appeal. The core legal question concerns whether the appellants should be enlarged on bail solely on the ground of delay in the disposal of the appeal by the court. The Supreme Court held that it is not inclined to release the petitioners on bail merely due to the delay in the disposal of the appeal, keeping in view the state of work pending in the court. The application for suspension of sentence and bail was accordingly rejected, with a direction that efforts be made for the early disposal of the main appeal. The key principle laid down is that delay in the disposal of an appeal alone, given court workloads, does not automatically warrant the release of a convicted appellant on bail.
Questions settled- Can a convicted appellant be released on bail merely on the ground of delay in the disposal of the appeal?
- Whether the Supreme Court will suspend a sentence and grant bail pending appeal due to the state of work in the court?
- NAZIR AHMED vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1982 SCMR 919 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's second appeal and confirmed the order of the Additional District Judge directing the ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises. The Rent Controller had initially rejected the landlord's ejectment application, but the appellate court and subsequently the High Court accepted the landlord's plea that the premises were bona fide required for personal use and occupation. The core legal question concerned whether the landlord's simultaneous prayer for enhancement of rent and ownership of other shops negated the bona fides of his personal use requirement. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts regarding the bona fide personal need were based on conclusive evidence and that the assertions regarding other properties belonging to the landlord were unsubstantiated. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine, granting the petitioner time to vacate subject to the clearance of rent.
Questions settled- Whether simultaneous prayer for enhancement of rent renders a landlord's claim for personal use mala fide?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent factual findings regarding bona fide personal requirement under rent laws?
- Whether ownership of other properties in the same locality disproves the bona fide requirement of a demised premises by a landlord?
- NAZIR AHMED vs Ch. SARDAR MUHAMMAD1982 SC MR1113 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs WAPDA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 356 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs THE STATE.1982 P Cr. L J 690 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-29Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, BAHAWALPUR AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 119 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-12-16Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ELECTION TRIBUNAL, SIALKOT AND1982 CLC 678 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-30Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 350 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-04-05Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD AND Others vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND OTHERS1982 P Cr. L J 490 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-09Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD AND Another vs The STATE1982 SCMR 1146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants for the murder of Muhammad Ibrahim and the subsequent concealment of his dead body. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the guilt of the appellants through circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, extra-judicial confessions made before a village Panchayat, and the recovery of incriminating items and the corpse. The Supreme Court held that while the evidence conclusively established the guilt of the primary accused, Nazir Ahmad, for both murder and concealment, the evidence against the co-appellant, Mst. Sardaran, was insufficient to sustain a conviction for murder. The Court affirmed the conviction of Nazir Ahmad for murder and concealment. However, regarding Mst. Sardaran, the Court held that while her involvement in concealing the crime was proved, her direct participation in the murder was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction of Nazir Ahmad, while partially accepting the appeal of Mst. Sardaran by acquitting her of the murder charge while maintaining her conviction for concealing the body.
Questions settled- Is a conviction for murder sustainable solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence?
- Does the recovery of personal effects of the deceased from an accused's possession constitute sufficient proof of murder?
- Can an appellate court maintain a conviction for concealment of evidence while acquitting an accused of the underlying murder charge?
- NAZIR AHMAD AND 3 Other vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Lahore 509 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-05Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD AND 2 Others vs The STATE1982 SCMR 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioners' revision against their conviction under Section 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners challenged their conviction for robbery, arguing that the prosecution evidence was unreliable and that the delay in hearing their revision petition warranted interference. The Supreme Court observed that the petition was significantly time-barred and lacked merit. The Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which relied on credible ocular evidence and the recovery of stolen property from the petitioners' possession, were sound. The Court rejected the argument that the failure to recover the weapons used in the crime undermined the prosecution's case, noting that the recovery of the stolen vehicle and articles shortly after the incident provided strong corroboration. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the delay in the hearing of the revision petition did not merit relief, particularly as the petitioners had remained on bail during that period. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the failure to recover the weapons used in a robbery undermine the prosecution's case when other incriminating evidence exists?
- Does a significant delay in the hearing of a revision petition automatically entitle a convicted person to relief if they were on bail during the delay?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when the evidence is found to be reliable?
- NAZIM KHAN AND 6 OTHERS vs MESSRS STERLING PRODUCTS (PAK.) LTD.1982 PLC 938 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-07-29Read full judgment →
- NAZEER AHMAD AND Others vs YASIN AND Other1982 SCMR 1154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order that upheld the restoration of land to the original allottee. The dispute arose when 19 kanals of land, originally confirmed in the name of the respondents' predecessor, were cancelled via an ex parte order based on an incorrect report by a Patwari, and subsequently re-allotted to the petitioners. The core legal question was whether the respondents' claim was barred by laches and delay, given the time elapsed before they challenged the cancellation. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower appellate authority's decision, noting that the initial cancellation order was illegal, clandestine, and based on false information. The Court held that where substantial justice has been done and property is restored to the rightful claimant, the plea of laches loses its force, especially when the delay is adequately explained. Consequently, the Court found no justification to interfere with the fair and just order of the High Court, dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can an ex parte cancellation of land allotment based on an incorrect official report be upheld?
- Does the doctrine of laches bar the restoration of land to a rightful claimant when the delay is adequately explained?
- Is the Supreme Court justified in refusing leave to appeal when substantial justice has been achieved by the lower courts?
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE45 TAX 52 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-23Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND Other1982 SCMR 894(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed by the complainant, Nazar Muhammad, challenging an order dated 23-5-1981 passed by the High Court, which had granted bail to the respondents, Muhammad Nawaz and Laloo, in a criminal case. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court exercised its judicial discretion properly in granting bail to the accused persons, or if there were grounds for the Supreme Court to interfere with that exercise of discretion. Upon reviewing the arguments presented by the learned counsel and examining the relevant orders and documents on the record, the Supreme Court held that the grant of bail is essentially a matter within the discretion of the High Court. The Court found that the High Court’s order was based on sound reasoning, and there was no evidence of misreading or omission of the record. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court had not violated any legal principles, and thus, the petition lacked merit and was dismissed, refusing to interfere with the bail order.
Questions settled- Is the grant of bail essentially a matter of discretion for the High Court?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order granting bail?
- Does the absence of misreading or omission of the record by the High Court justify the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal against a bail order?
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD QURAISHI vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1982 PLC (C. S.) 721 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-02Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD AND Another vs The STATE1982 SCM R 628 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a High Court judgment that reduced the sentences of the appellants, Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Siddiq, who had been convicted by an Additional Sessions Judge under sections 325, 323, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellants did not contest the merits of the conviction but argued that the High Court had failed to properly consider the provisions of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which mandates that the court must take into account the period of pre-trial detention when sentencing an accused to imprisonment. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the impugned judgment and determined that the High Court had, in fact, duly considered the period of detention while exercising its discretion to reduce the sentences from seven years to four years of rigorous imprisonment. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appellants' contention regarding the omission of the statutory requirement. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the High Court had satisfied the legal obligation to account for pre-trial custody.
Questions settled- Is a court required to consider the period of pre-trial detention when sentencing an accused to imprisonment under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to explicitly mention the consideration of pre-trial detention in a judgment necessarily imply that the court failed to apply Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- NAZAR ALI vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 457 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-01-05Read full judgment →
- NAZAK HUSSAIN AND 2 Other vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 180 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-02Read full judgment →
- NAYAR MANZOOR vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND OTHER1982 C .L C 2416 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
- NAY AR MANZOOR vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2416 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
- Nawabzada MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN (REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS)1982 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-09-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged Martial Law Order No. 47, which divested them of their property (shops) without compensation, transferring title to occupants. The core legal question was whether this order constituted a valid legislative measure protected by constitutional validation clauses or an executive act subject to judicial review. The Court held the order void and of no legal effect. It reasoned that the order was not a legislative measure of general application but an executive act targeting specific individuals, which violated fundamental principles of property rights and natural justice. The Court established that constitutional validation clauses do not protect acts performed without jurisdiction or those tainted by mala fide. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that superior courts possess inherent jurisdiction to determine their own authority, and that void ab initio orders are not subject to the doctrine of laches. The principle laid down is that law must be a rule of general application, and acts of confiscation for private use, lacking public purpose, cannot be validated as legitimate legislation, even under Martial Law regimes.
Questions settled- Does a superior court have the inherent power to determine its own jurisdiction despite constitutional ouster clauses?
- Can a Martial Law Order that targets specific individuals for property confiscation be considered a valid legislative measure?
- Are acts done with mala fide intent or without jurisdiction protected by constitutional validation clauses?
- Does the doctrine of laches apply to a challenge against an order that is void ab initio?
- NAWAB vs The STATE1982 SCMR 484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Nawab, for the triple murder of his father-in-law, mother-in-law, and wife. The appellant admitted to the killings but contended that he acted under grave and sudden provocation, claiming he discovered his wife in a compromising position with an eye-witness. The core legal question was whether the plea of grave and sudden provocation was substantiated and whether it mitigated the culpability for all three murders. The Supreme Court held that while the circumstances surrounding the wife's death supported the plea of grave and sudden provocation, the murders of the father-in-law and mother-in-law were committed while they were asleep, negating any such provocation regarding them. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 302 for the wife's murder, substituting it with a conviction under Section 304, Part I, while maintaining the death sentences for the other two murders. The key principle established is that a plea of grave and sudden provocation does not extend to victims who were not involved in the provocative act and were killed while asleep.
Questions settled- Can a plea of grave and sudden provocation mitigate the sentence for the murder of a spouse if the accused also killed other family members who were not involved in the provocative act?
- Does the killing of sleeping victims negate a claim of grave and sudden provocation?
- Is a conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when the act was committed under grave and sudden provocation?
- NAWAB KHAN vs N.-W.F.P. GOVERNMENT1982 PLC (C. S.) 257 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
- NAWAB DIN vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2048 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-13Read full judgment →
- NAWAB DIN vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CONSOLIDATION AND OTHER1982 CLC 2048 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-13Read full judgment →
- NAWAB & Co. vs RUSTAM AND 4 OTHERS1982 PLC 357 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-04Read full judgment →
- NAVAID HUSSAIN vs MRS. A. MIRZA1982 CLC 1518 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION vs SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY1982 PLC 647 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-29Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION LTD., vs MUHAMMAD MATEEN HASHMI1982 PLC 215 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION LTD. vs SALEEM ANWAR BALOCH1982 PLC 652 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-17Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD vs DR. MISS AKHTAR JAMAL1982 PLC 845 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BOOK PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES UNION vs NATIONAL BOOK1982 PLC 535 · Labour Court · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs S. AMEEN TAREEN1982 CLC 900 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs M/s. OCEAN INDUSTRIES LTD. AND 5 OTHERS1982 CLC 2606 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-30Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs M/S. OCEAN INDUSTRIES LTD. AND 5 OTHER1982 CLC 2606 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-30Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ MALIK AND 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 135 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-10Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD JAVED KHAN1982 PLC 380 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-14Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MESSRS NASIR INDUSTRIES, KARACHI AND OTHER1982 CLC 388 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This execution matter before the Sindh High Court arose from applications filed by judgment-debtors seeking to set aside an auction sale of a factory property. The auction-purchaser had failed to deposit the remaining seventy-five percent of the purchase money within the fifteen-day period prescribed under Order XXI Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, having instead obtained an ex-parte extension of time from a single judge. The core legal questions were whether the Court had jurisdiction to extend the statutory time limit for depositing the balance purchase money, and whether non-compliance rendered the sale void. The High Court held that the provisions of Order XXI Rule 85 are mandatory, not directory, and non-compliance automatically renders the sale void. The Court has no jurisdiction under Section 148 or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to extend the time. Consequently, the Court declared the sale void, ordered a resale of the property, and directed the return of the deposited amount to the auction-purchaser without forfeiture.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of Order XXI Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the payment of the balance purchase money mandatory or directory?
- Does the Court have jurisdiction under Section 148 or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to extend the fifteen-day period for depositing the balance purchase money?
- What is the legal effect of an auction-purchaser's failure to deposit the balance purchase money within the period prescribed under Order XXI Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Under what circumstances does the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' apply to protect a party who has acted upon an erroneous order of the Court?
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs F. S. NAEEMUDDIN And 3 OTHER1982 CLC 123 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-25Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs F. S. AITZAZUDDIN AND 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 577 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit involves a claim by the National Bank of Pakistan against the successors of a guarantor regarding an overdraft facility extended to a principal borrower. The core legal questions were whether the suit was maintainable despite the non-joinder of the principal debtor, whether the claim was time-barred, and the extent of the guarantors' liability. The Court held that the suit was maintainable and within the limitation period. Relying on the Contract Act 1872, the Court affirmed that the liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, and the creditor is not legally compelled to exhaust remedies against the principal debtor before initiating proceedings against the surety. Furthermore, mere forbearance to sue the principal debtor does not discharge the surety. The Court established that a creditor may proceed directly against the surety when the guarantee contract creates a distinct liability, and such a suit is governed by the limitation period applicable from the date of the guarantee.
Questions settled- Is a suit against a guarantor maintainable without joining the principal debtor as a defendant?
- Does a creditor's failure to sue the principal debtor discharge the surety's liability?
- Is the liability of a surety co-extensive with that of the principal debtor under the Contract Act 1872?
- Does the limitation period for a suit against a surety commence from the date of the letter of guarantee?
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs DARABSHAH B. DALAL1982 CLC 2007 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-25Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE Co. LTD., KARACHI AND 2 Other1982 SCMR 820 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The National Bank of Pakistan filed a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which permitted the disbursement of an insurance claim amount to respondent No. 3 against a bank guarantee during the pendency of an appeal arising from arbitration proceedings. The petitioner bank had advanced a cash-credit facility secured by an assignment of the insurance policy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner bank was a necessary or proper party to be impleaded in the appeal arising from arbitration proceedings to which it was not a party, and whether disbursement of the decretal amount should be unconditionally stayed. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not a party to the original arbitration proceedings and that the disputes regarding entitlement to the dues were already pending adjudication before competent civil courts. The Court ruled that adequate safeguards were provided by the High Court through a bank guarantee, and the petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a party claiming through an assignment cannot intervene in arbitration proceedings or appeals arising therefrom without being a party to the initial proceedings, especially when parallel civil suits are pending for adjudication of rival claims.
Questions settled- Whether an assignee of an insurance policy can be impleaded as a party in an appeal arising from arbitration proceedings to which it was not originally a party?
- Can disbursement of a decretal amount in an insurance claim be made subject to a bank guarantee pending the adjudication of civil suits between the parties?
- Does an assignment of an insurance policy entitle the assignee to intervene directly in collateral appeal proceedings without initiating timely action under the policy?
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs BAWANY INDUSTRIES LTD. and 3 OTHERS1982 CLC 2625 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs BAWANY INDUSTRIES LTD. And 3 OTHER1982 CLC 2625 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs ABDUL MAJEED KANJOO1982 CLC 1464 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-16Read full judgment →
- NASRULLAH vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, D. G. KHAN Etc1982 CLC 2174 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-18Read full judgment →
- NASRULLAH vs btPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, D. G. KHAN ETC.1982 CLC 2174 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-18Read full judgment →
- NASREEN AKHTAR vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM1982 CLC 1278 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
- NASIRA vs CHULAM HUSSAIN AND Other1982 SCMR 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondents filed a pre-emption suit against the petitioner claiming preferential rights as co-sharers and estate owners, which was dismissed by the trial court both on merits and on the ground that evacuee property was not pre-emptiable. The District Judge accepted the respondents' preferential claim but upheld the dismissal on the non-maintainability of pre-emption against evacuee property. In second appeal, the Lahore High Court allowed the respondents' claim relying on precedent. The petitioner sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the appellate court should have remanded the matter for fresh trial rather than deciding on merits once it found the suit not maintainable. The Supreme Court held that since both parties had led evidence on all issues and the petitioner had not filed cross-objections regarding the findings on preferential claims, the petition lacked merit. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming that a remand was unnecessary under such circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit is competent in respect of evacuee property?
- Should an appellate court remand a suit for fresh trial when the lower appellate court dismissed it on a preliminary legal point after parties had already led evidence on all issues?
- Does the failure to file cross-objections regarding adverse findings preclude a party from challenging those findings on further appeal?
- NASIR USMAN vs ASHIQ ALI AND 5 OTHERS1982 P Cr. L J 306 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-02Read full judgment →
- NASIR M. KHAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1982 PLC (C. S.) 410 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →