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.
- NASIR HASSAN vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND 5 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 548 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
- NASIR ALI vs Munshi MEHAR KHAN1982 P Cr. L J 1261 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-12Read full judgment →
- NASIR ALI KHAN vs PRESIDENT, PAKISTAN ASSOCIATION OF BLIND, NAWABSHAH1982 PLC 478 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
- NASIR AHMAD vs DIL MUHAMMAD AND 2 Other1982 SCMR 1006 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment that refused to cancel the bail granted to respondents in a murder case, primarily because the trial had already commenced. The core legal question was whether the commencement of a murder trial acts as an absolute bar to the cancellation of bail, or if bail can still be cancelled if the accused is obstructing the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that while the commencement of a trial generally makes the cancellation of bail improper due to potential prejudice, it is not an absolute prohibition. The Court affirmed that bail may be cancelled if the accused is hampering or prolonging the trial or attempting to suborn evidence. However, in this specific instance, the Court declined to cancel the bail, finding insufficient evidence that the delay was attributable to the respondents' conduct rather than the trial judge's failure to manage the proceedings efficiently. The Court emphasized that trial judges must adhere to rules requiring the expeditious disposal of murder cases and should utilize provisions like Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to prevent unnecessary adjournments.
Questions settled- Does the commencement of a murder trial act as an absolute bar to the cancellation of bail?
- Under what circumstances can bail be cancelled after a trial has commenced?
- Is the absence of an accused on medical grounds a sufficient reason to adjourn a murder trial when multiple accused are represented by counsel?
- NASIM QURESHI AND ANOTHER vs Ch. MAQSOODUL HASSAN AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1654 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-24Read full judgment →
- NASIM AHMED SIDDIQUI AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL1982 PLC 264 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-27Read full judgment →
- NASIM AHMAD vs SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & RENT CONTROLLER AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Karachi 210 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, directing the tenant to tentatively deposit arrears of rent and future monthly rent during pending ejectment proceedings. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller is required to finally determine the rate of rent and arrears or pass a tentative order following a summary inquiry under Section 16 of the Ordinance. The High Court held that proceedings under Section 16 are interlocutory in nature, empowering the Controller to conduct a summary inquiry and pass a tentative rent order, while the final determination of the rate of rent and arrears must be decided after full evidence is recorded during the trial under Section 19. The petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that the tentative determination based on documents and hearing is within the lawful jurisdiction of the Controller.
Questions settled- Whether the Rent Controller is required to finally determine the rate of rent and arrears or pass a tentative order under Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- What is the nature of the summary inquiry conducted by the Rent Controller under Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Can an application under Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 be filed independently of an eviction proceeding?
- NASEER AHMAD vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 586 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-16Read full judgment →
- NARAYANA vs PROVINCE OF SINDH AND 15 OTHER1982 CLC 12 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- NANIK RAM AND 3 Others vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND1982 CLC 1947 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
- NAN FUNG. TEXTILES LTD. vs SADIQ TRADERS LTD.1982 PLD Karachi 619 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of three petitions filed under section 5 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, seeking enforcement of foreign arbitration awards made by the Liverpool Cotton Association Ltd. against various Pakistani companies for breaches of cotton purchase contracts. The core legal questions involved whether a non-speaking foreign award could be challenged under the Arbitration Act, 1940 or the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981, whether foreign awards are subject to stamp duty under the Stamp Act, and whether the petitions were barred by limitation. The Sindh High Court held that foreign awards governed by the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 are distinct from domestic awards, that the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and subsequent domestic amendments regarding non-speaking awards do not apply to foreign awards, that foreign awards executed outside Pakistan and not relating to property or acts within Pakistan are not chargeable with stamp duty under the Stamp Act, and that limitation periods prescribed for domestic awards do not apply. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions, ordered the awards to be filed, and pronounced judgment in terms of the awards.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 apply to foreign awards governed by the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937?
- Does a non-speaking foreign award violate public policy so as to be unenforceable under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937?
- Are foreign awards executed outside Pakistan chargeable with stamp duty under the Stamp Act?
- Does Article 178 of the Limitation Act apply to applications for the enforcement of foreign awards under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937?
- NAJMUDDIN vs ZAMIR AHMAD1982 PLD Karachi 188 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal under section 15(4) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 arose from an eviction application filed by the landlord against the tenant on the grounds of subletting, default in rent payment, unauthorized constructions, and misuse of the premises. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the first appellate court set aside this order, holding that the default was not wilful and that subletting was not established. The core legal questions involved whether the lower appellate court properly exercised its discretion regarding default and whether entering into a partnership constitutes subletting or transfer of tenancy rights. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenant was led into default by the landlord's conduct and that a mere partnership does not amount to subletting or transfer of tenancy rights unless tenancy rights are expressly assigned to the firm. The key principle laid down is that the Controller has ample discretion not to order eviction for default where the tenant was misled by the landlord, and that allowing a partner to use demised premises while retaining legal possession does not constitute unlawful subletting.
Questions settled- Whether the Controller is bound to order eviction in every case where a default in payment of rent has been proved under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does a tenant entering into a partnership with another person and permitting the firm to carry on business in the demised premises amount to subletting or transfer of tenancy rights?
- Can non-action or delay by a landlord in taking action against alleged subletting amount to waiver or acquiescence?
- Whether the mere use of demised premises by a partnership firm in which the tenant is a partner constitutes a breach of the covenant against subletting or assigning tenancy rights?
- NAJMUDDIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND 12 OTHERS -1982 P Cr. L J 105 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-16Read full judgment →
- Naji MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND OTHER1982 CLC 2129 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
- NAJABAT AND Other vs SABAN BIBI AND Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a civil dispute over landed property. The plaintiffs claimed one-half share as co-owners, alleging that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants had fraudulently omitted their names from the revenue records in 1902. Upon their immediate protest, the predecessor executed an agreement/acknowledgment (Exh. P. 1) admitting their co-ownership and possession, which was acted upon until 1953 when the defendants effected an exchange mutation. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, but the first appellate court reversed it on limitation and lack of independent title evidence. The High Court, in a Regular Second Appeal, restored the trial court's decree. The defendants' subsequent application for a Letters Patent Appeal certificate was dismissed as time-barred under a mistaken 20-day limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for seeking a certificate to file a Letters Patent Appeal against an appellate judgment of a Single Judge is 30 days, not 20 days. On the merits, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs were not bound to sue so long as their co-ownership was acknowledged and acted upon, and limitation only began to run from the first overt act of denial (the 1953 mutation). The High Court's judgment was upheld.
Questions settled- What is the correct period of limitation for filing an application for a certificate to prefer a Letters Patent Appeal against a judgment passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction?
- Does the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to applications for a Letters Patent Appeal certificate where the High Court Rules provide a specific timeframe for the appeal itself?
- Does limitation to challenge an adverse revenue entry begin to run against a co-owner if the beneficiary of that entry has executed a written acknowledgment of the co-owner's title and possession which is actively maintained?
- NAFIS AHMAD AND 4 OTHERS vs UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 608 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-29Read full judgment →
- NADEEM AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS TIGER HOSIERY MILLS1982 PLC 945 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-07-07Read full judgment →
- NABI BUX KHOSO vs PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION1982 PLD Karachi 725 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV), filed constitutional petitions seeking benefits under the Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, and the III Wage Board Award, contending they were "newspaper employees." The core legal question was whether PTV constitutes a "newspaper establishment" under the Act, thereby bringing its employees within the Act's purview. The Court held that PTV is not a "newspaper establishment" as defined by the Act, as its primary function is entertainment rather than operating as a news agency or syndicate for the sale of news. Consequently, the petitioners, despite performing work akin to journalism, did not qualify as "newspaper employees" under the statute. The Court affirmed that while beneficial legislation requires liberal construction, this principle cannot override express statutory definitions. Furthermore, the Court established that the term "news agency" implies an entity primarily engaged in gathering and selling news to other media outlets. As the petitioners failed to satisfy the statutory requirements, the petitions were dismissed, confirming that PTV employees are governed by their specific service terms rather than the Newspaper Employees Act.
Questions settled- Does the Pakistan Television Corporation qualify as a 'newspaper establishment' under the Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973?
- Can a court extend the benefits of a beneficial enactment to persons who do not fall within the express statutory definitions?
- What is the legal distinction between the use of the terms 'means' and 'includes' in a statutory definition clause?
- Does a talent contract override the statutory protections provided to employees under the Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973?
- N. A. SHAHRIYAR vs MESSRS CONFORCE LTD.1982 CLC 1570 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-27Read full judgment →
- N. A. SHAHR1YAR vs MESSRS CONFORCE LTD.1982 CLC 1570 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-27Read full judgment →
- N. A. QURESHI vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 242 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged an order by the Secretary Food Department that made his promotion to Deputy Director Food, previously sanctioned by the Governor, subject to the 'formal approval' of the Services, General Administration & Information Department. The promotion had been deferred due to a pending criminal case against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the government could impose such a condition after the competent authority had already sanctioned the promotion. The Court held that the term 'formal approval' implies a mere procedural step rather than a substantive review, and the Departmental Promotion Committee lacked the authority to undo an order issued by the Chief Executive of the Province. The Court emphasized that the government was aware of the pending criminal case when it issued the initial promotion order, and there was no legal justification to withhold the promotion on that pretext. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to give immediate effect to the promotion order, noting that the petitioner's conviction, if any, would still carry legal consequences regardless of the promotion.
Questions settled- Can a subordinate department withhold a promotion order already sanctioned by the competent authority under the guise of 'formal approval'?
- Does the pendency of a criminal case automatically justify the deferment of a promotion already sanctioned by the Governor?
- What is the legal scope of 'formal approval' in the context of administrative promotion orders?
- M/s. MUHAMMADIA TRADING CO. vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 1581 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-21Read full judgment →
- M/s. BAGH CONSTRUCTION Co. vs TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KARACHI1982 CLC 1830 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
- MVKHI CHATROMAL vs THE STATE AND 3 OTHERSs1982 P Cr. L J 604 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-24Read full judgment →
- Mv. HUSSAIN SHAH AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 704 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR WAFA vs SECRETARY, SERVICES AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION1982 PLC (C. S.) 308 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1982-02-17Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 448 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-08Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR SHAH vs ABDUL KHALIQ1982 SCMR 456 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the appellant-tenant's second appeal and upheld the concurrent orders of ejectment passed by three lower forums on the ground of personal requirement of the respondent-landlord for his son's marriage accommodation. The core legal question was whether the requirement of the house for the landlord's son ceased to be a valid personal requirement due to an alleged statement in evidence that the house might be given to the daughter-in-law in lieu of dower. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide personal requirement for accommodating the newly wedded son remained unaffected, and the purported contradiction was neither supported by the record nor violative of the statute. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact on the bona fide personal requirement of a landlord for family accommodation will not be disturbed in second appeal or leave to appeal unless shown to be perverse or contrary to law.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement for a son's marriage can be interfered with when supported by evidence?
- Does an intention to accommodate a newly wedded couple constitute a valid personal requirement under tenancy laws?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal liable to dismissal when mandatory copies of evidence are not filed in accordance with court rules?
- MUZAFFAR MUSTAFA Alias ZAFAR ALI vs The STATE1982 SCMR 695 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant was sentenced to death for the murder of Abdul Karim. Following the dismissal of his appeal by the Lahore High Court, the appellant sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, specifically challenging the sentence in light of a compromise reached between the parties. During the appellate proceedings, the legal heirs of the deceased—the widow, mother, and complainant—appeared before the Court, confirming that a voluntary reconciliation had occurred and that they had received compensation from the appellant's father. They explicitly stated their forgiveness for the appellant. The core legal question was whether the sentence of death should be maintained given this reconciliation. The Court, relying on established precedent regarding the effect of compromise in capital cases, held that the lesser sentence would suffice the ends of justice. Consequently, the Court reduced the sentence of death to imprisonment for life, granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and maintained the fine.
Questions settled- Can a sentence of death be reduced to imprisonment for life based on a compromise between the parties?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to a sentence reduced from death to life imprisonment?
- MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND1982 PLC (C. S.) 582 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
- MUTAHIR SHAH AND Others vs The STATE1982 SCMR 1114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction for the offence of sodomy under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners, having been convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and having had their convictions upheld by both the Additional Sessions Judge and the Peshawar High Court, sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on sufficient evidence, particularly regarding the credibility of the complainant and the supporting medical evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact by the three lower courts were well-founded and supported by both the complainant's testimony and independent medical evidence confirming the offence. The Court affirmed that where concurrent findings of fact are based on proper consideration of evidence and do not suffer from legal adversity or miscarriage of justice, no interference is warranted. The principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in criminal matters absent a demonstration of legal error or miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in criminal cases absent legal error?
- Is the testimony of a complainant in a sodomy case sufficient for conviction when supported by medical evidence?
- Does the lack of resistance by a victim in a sodomy case negate the commission of the offence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- MUSTAFA vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND Other1982 SCMR 288 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition, filed by the complainant Mustafa, challenges the acquittal of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 by the High Court in a murder and murderous assault case. The core legal question revolves around whether the High Court was justified in disbelieving the ocular testimony, which was contradicted by the medical evidence and supported only by related or chance witnesses in the context of a bitter longstanding blood feud between the parties. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court provided cogent and detailed reasons for discrediting the prosecution evidence, particularly noting that the sparse number of injuries sustained despite numerous alleged assailants contradicted the prosecution version, and that no misreading or omission of evidence warranting a re-appraisal had been established. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal or re-appraise evidence unless a clear flaw, misreading, or omission in the lower court's appreciation of evidence is pointed out.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will re-appraise evidence in a criminal petition against acquittal when no misreading or omission of evidence is pointed out?
- Does a glaring discrepancy between the large number of alleged armed assailants and the minimal injuries sustained support an inference that the ocular testimony is contradicted by the medical evidence?
- Are witnesses who reside at considerable distances and fail to give convincing explanations for their presence at the scene considered unreliable chance witnesses?
- MUSTAFA SHAH vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 909 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
- MUSTAFA KHAN vs ADMINISTRATOR, RESIDUAL PROPERTY AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2487 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
- STATE vs WARIS AND 3 OTHERS1982 P Cr. L J 99 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
- MUSTAFA KHAN vs ADMINISTRATOR, RESIDUAL PROPERTY AND OTHER1982 CLC 2487 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.. vs Sh. IJAZ NISAR AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 1433 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-11Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs Sh. IJAZ NISAR AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 1433 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs AKHLAQ AHMED KHAN1982 PLC 863 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQUE ALI vs COMMISSIONER, SUKKUR DIVISION AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 270 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1982-01-01Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQUE AHMED vs MESSRS M. ISAMIL M. ASLAM LTD. KARACHI1982 PLC 601 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-18Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN vs Mst. NASEEM AKHTAR Err.1982 PLD Supreme Court 271 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the appointment of a female respondent as the Lambardar of a village. The petitioner, the brother of the deceased Lambardar, challenged the appointment, arguing that the rule of primogeniture under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, favored him as the nearest male collateral and excluded the daughter of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the relevant rules prohibit the appointment of a female as a Lambardar. The Supreme Court held that the appointment was valid. The Court reasoned that while Rule 19(2)(d) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, states that a female is not ordinarily eligible for the office of a headman, it explicitly allows for such an appointment in specific circumstances, such as when she is the sole owner of the estate or for other special reasons. Consequently, the Court found no violation of law or jurisdictional error in the revenue authorities' decision to appoint the respondent.
Questions settled- Does the rule of primogeniture under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, strictly exclude a daughter from being appointed as a Lambardar?
- Under what circumstances can a female be appointed as a Lambardar under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968?
- Is the appointment of a female as a Lambardar in violation of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, when she is not the sole owner of the estate?
- MUSHTAQ ALI vs The STATE1982 SCMR 766 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the orders of the Lahore High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case involving murder and rioting. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of self-defence, conflicting versions of the incident, statutory delay in trial, and deteriorating health. The Supreme Court held that it had not yet been established who was the aggressor, and granting bail under the circumstances would amount to prejudging the case on its merits. The petition was consequently dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where the question of aggression and self-defence requires assessment of evidence, bail will not be granted to an accused charged with a capital offense, as doing so would prematurely prejudge the merits of the case.
Questions settled- Whether an accused charged with murder is entitled to bail on the plea of self-defence when the identity of the primary aggressor is yet to be established?
- Does a delay of over a year in the commencement of the trial warrant the grant of bail in a murder case?
- Whether evaluating conflicting versions of an occurrence at the bail stage amounts to prejudging the case on its merits?
- MUSHTAQ ALI vs MUHAMMAD BAKHSH Alias MIAN MUHAMMAD1982 SCMR 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside an order of the Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of a composite evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the High Court in its writ jurisdiction was justified in interfering with the Settlement Commissioner's decision dividing a composite building and transferring portions separately to different contesting parties as independent business units. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in treating the premises as a single indivisible shop and failing to consider the powers under the second proviso to section 2(12) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, which allows the authorities to divide multiple-unit premises into separate shops. Furthermore, the High Court incorrectly recorded findings regarding the non-summoning of records without examining the original file. The Court established that the High Court should not interfere with the discretionary division of evacuee property by settlement authorities acting within their lawful authority under the statute.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in its writ jurisdiction can interfere with the division of a composite evacuee property made by Settlement Authorities?
- Does the second proviso to section 2(12) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 empower the Settlement Commissioner to divide a multiple-unit premises into separate independent shops?
- Can a finding that a revisional authority acted without summoning the record be sustained without examining the original record of the case?
- MUSHTAQ ALI ETC. vs NOOR MUHAMMAD ETC.1982 CLC 2177 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-16Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ ALI AND Others vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND Other1982 SCMR 428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the ownership and usage rights of a roof situated above three shops, which formed part of a composite property previously transferred by Settlement Authorities. The petitioners, transferees of the residential portion, sought to construct on the roof above the shops, which were transferred to the respondents. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, upon the petitioners' request for a No-Objection Certificate, determined the respondents owned the roof above the shops. The Settlement Commissioner upheld this ownership but allowed the petitioners continued passage rights. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition, affirming the transfer extended from ground to sky. The Supreme Court addressed whether the Settlement Authorities were functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to demarcate the property after the issuance of Permanent Transfer Documents (P.T.D.). The Court held that since the petitioners themselves invoked the Settlement Authorities' jurisdiction to clarify the property boundaries, they were estopped from challenging that authority. The petition was dismissed, as the Court found the orders fair and just.
Questions settled- Can a party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities to clarify property boundaries later challenge their authority to decide the matter?
- Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Document render the Settlement Authorities functus officio regarding the demarcation of transferred property?
- Is a dispute regarding the demarcation of roof rights in a composite property exclusively the function of civil courts after the issuance of transfer documents?
- MUSHTAQ AHMED vs The STATE1982 SCMR 951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's criminal revision against his conviction under section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner was originally convicted by the Special Railway Magistrate for an offence under section 354, P.P.C., and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment, which was subsequently reduced to six months by the Additional Sessions Judge, whose judgment was upheld by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the ingredients of an offence under section 354, P.P.C. were made out on the facts alleged by the prosecution, specifically whether slapping the complainant and pulling her Burqa causing it to tear constitutes outraging the modesty of a woman. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the pulling and tearing of the Burqa of a pardah-observing Muslim lady when accompanied by an assault amounts to outraging the modesty of a woman within the contemplation of section 354, P.P.C. The key principle laid down is that acts directed against the religious or cultural attire of a woman, such as forcibly pulling and tearing her Burqa during an assault, satisfy the legal threshold for outraging modesty under section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
Questions settled- Does the pulling and tearing of a Burqa of a pardah-observing woman constitute outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Whether slapping a woman and tearing her veil amounts to an offence under Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code?
- MUSHTAQ AHMED FAROOQ, ADVOCATE vs MUHAMMAD YUSUF1982 CLC 2341 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-06-25Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMED BHATTI vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU &1982 PLC (C. S.) 48 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1981-09-16Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMED AND 2 OTHERS vs MESSRS ALLIED RAYON MILLS, KARACHI1982 PLC 439 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs INTERIOR SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1982CLC 1857 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-13Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE1982 SCMR 965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal reinstating the petitioner, a bus fitter, following his dismissal from service. The petitioner had been dismissed after taking a bus without authorization and causing a fatal accident. The core legal questions were whether the amendment to Section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, introduced by Act XI of 1976, applied retrospectively to misconduct occurring before the amendment, and whether the charge of misconduct was sufficiently proven. The Supreme Court held that the amendment, which imposed a one-month limitation period for initiating disciplinary action, was not retrospective and did not apply to misconduct occurring prior to its enactment. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the unauthorized act of driving the bus by a fitter was proven. The key principle laid down is that statutory amendments imposing procedural limitations on disciplinary actions do not apply retrospectively to acts of misconduct committed before the amendment's commencement.
Questions settled- Does the amendment to Section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, regarding the one-month limitation period for disciplinary action, apply retrospectively?
- Can an employee be dismissed for misconduct if the disciplinary action was initiated after the misconduct occurred but before the enactment of a statutory limitation period?
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1008 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
- MURAD vs Tim STATE1982 PLD Lahore 524 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
- MURAD vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 103 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-07Read full judgment →
- MUNSHI MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER1982 PLC (C. S.) 149 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Munshi MEHAR HUSSAIN vs COMMISSIONER, SUKKUR DIVISION AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 38 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1981-09-15Read full judgment →
- MUNIRUL HASSAN vs WAPDA1982 PLC (C. S.) 541 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-16Read full judgment →
- MUNIR IQBAL AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 347 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-28Read full judgment →
- MUNIR HUSSAIN vs Mst. MEHRUN NISA (THROUGH HER LEGAL HEIRS)PLD 1982 Karachi 71. · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts ordering the appellant-tenant's ejectment from the disputed premises on the application of the landlady. The core legal question was whether an ejectment application signed, verified, and presented by a special attorney was validly instituted when the power of attorney did not expressly grant the power to sign, verify, or present pleadings, and was not properly attested under the law. The Sindh High Court held that a power of attorney must be construed strictly and an agent cannot exceed the powers specifically granted, and further found that in the absence of proper attestation and supporting evidence, the execution of the power of attorney was not proved. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the ejectment orders on this technical ground while leaving the respondents at liberty to file a fresh ejectment application under the relevant law. The key principle laid down is that a special power of attorney must be construed strictly according to its terms, and an attorney cannot institute legal proceedings or sign pleadings unless specifically authorised by the instrument, the execution of which must be duly proved if not entitled to statutory presumptions.
Questions settled- Whether a special power of attorney must be construed strictly regarding the powers granted to an agent?
- Can an attorney sign, verify, and present an ejectment application without express authorization in the power of attorney?
- Whether a power of attorney lacking proper attestation requires formal proof of execution in the absence of statutory presumptions?
- MUNIR AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS CAFE-DE-KHAN, KARACHI1982 PLC 307 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-09Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD KHAN AND Others vs SAMIULLAH KHAN AND OTHER1982 CLC 625 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the interpretation of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, introduced by Ordinance X of 1980, which mandates that challenges to judgments or decrees based on fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction must be made via application to the court that passed the order, rather than by a separate suit. The core legal question was whether such applications require a summary disposal or an elaborate judicial inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that since Section 12(2) serves as a substitute for a regular suit, the court is legally obligated to conduct a thorough inquiry. The court ruled that it is a material irregularity to set aside a decree based on allegations of fraud without affording parties the opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses. Consequently, the court set aside the lower court's orders, which had been passed without such inquiry, and remanded the matters for fresh decisions, directing that the allegations of fraud be determined after a full evidentiary hearing. This establishes that Section 12(2) proceedings require substantive inquiry rather than summary adjudication.
Questions settled- Does an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require a summary disposal or an elaborate inquiry?
- Can a court set aside a decree on the grounds of fraud without allowing the parties to cross-examine witnesses?
- Is an order passed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 appealable?
- Does the High Court have the power to convert an appeal into a revision?
- MUNIR AHMAD ETC. vs NOOR MUHAMMAD1982 SCMR 1038 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee property, specifically a shop, under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim the property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII while litigation regarding its status and transfer was pending, and whether a civil suit was maintainable to challenge the transfer of such property. The Supreme Court held that the property was not 'available' for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII at the time the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest applied for it, as it was already subject to pending writ proceedings. The Court affirmed that the previous High Court judgment, which had restored the original transfer order in favor of the respondent, was binding. Furthermore, the Court held that the shop and residential portion constituted a single unit, a determination within the competence of the Settlement Authority. Finally, the Court ruled that Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, created a statutory bar against the maintainability of the civil suit filed by the petitioner.
Questions settled- Can a civil suit be maintained to challenge the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Does the pendency of a writ petition regarding a property render it unavailable for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Is the determination of whether a shop and residential portion constitute a single unit within the exclusive competence of the Settlement Authority?
- MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GUJRANWALA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA AND OTHERS ,1982 PLC (C. S.) 101 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, PATTOKI vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR1982 CLC 910 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-23Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, LARKANA vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1982 CLC 611 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-07Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BANNU vs MUNAWAR KHAN, ADVOCATE1982 PLD Peshawar 61 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of a lease contract concerning a vacant site owned by the Municipal Committee, Bannu. The respondent claimed that the Controlling Authority’s approval of his lease proposal created a binding contract. The core legal question was whether this approval, absent the formal execution of a written deed as required by law, constituted an enforceable contract. The Court held that the approval did not create a binding contract. It emphasized that Section 26 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, and the associated rules prescribe mandatory procedures for the execution of contracts by Municipal Committees. Because these statutory formalities—including the execution of a formal written deed and proper reporting—were not followed, no enforceable contract existed. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' decrees and dismissed the suit. The key principle laid down is that contracts involving public bodies must strictly adhere to statutory formalities; failure to comply renders the agreement void and incapable of specific performance, regardless of any preliminary approval or administrative sanction.
Questions settled- Does the approval of a lease proposal by a Controlling Authority constitute a binding contract if the mandatory statutory execution procedures are not followed?
- Are the provisions of Section 26 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance 1960 regarding contract execution mandatory or directory?
- Can a court grant specific performance of a contract involving a public body if the statutory requirements for the contract's formation have not been satisfied?
- Does the Controlling Authority have the power to rescind an approval of a lease proposal if no formal contract has been executed and the order has not been acted upon?
- MUNEERUDDIN vs THE STATE1982 PLD Karachi 240 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-20Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR KHAN vs JAFER ALI AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 1060 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-05Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs REHMAT ALI1982 CLC 2458 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-23Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs REHM AT ALI1982 CLC 2458 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-23Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ KHAN vs JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MURREE AND Other1982 PLD Lahore 707 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-06Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs Syed IPTIK14AR HUSSAIN SHAH AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 1388 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-16Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ BEGUM AND ANOTHER vs HAJI1982 CLC 1208 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-28Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ BEGUM AND Another vs Hafiz ABDUL MUQTADIR AND 4 Other1982 PLD Karachi 783 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-06Read full judgment →
- MUM TAZ HUSSAIN vs Syed IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 1388 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-16Read full judgment →
- MULAZIM HUSSAIN AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1150 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
- MULA.ZIM AND Others vs THE STATE-1982 P Cr. L J 369 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-06Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMED vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 695 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-18Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs Hafiz ABDUL HAKEEM1982 CLC 2210 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · -Read full judgment →
- MUJAHID HUSSAIN NAQVI vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU &1982 PLC (C. S.) 770 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1982-08-23Read full judgment →
- MUHMMAD KALIMULLAH vs POST MASTER (CENTRAL), KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 702 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
- MUHMMAD ALI AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 631 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
- MUHMAMAD SALIM AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1274 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMD TUFAIL vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER. (1-I Qs) IRRIGATION, FAISALABAD REGION AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 86 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-05-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD" YAR vs NAWAB AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1306 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD. KHALID MOGHAL vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1937 · West Pakistan · 1982-02-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD. ASLAM vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 896 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZARAT vs MESSRS CAPITAL WOOD SEASONING INDUSTRY1982 PLC 120 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs TARIQ MAHMOOD AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2665 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs TARIQ MAHMOOD AND OTHER1982 CLC 2665 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AKHTAR AND Other1982 SCMR 1138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court concerning the disposal of property under Evacuee Laws. The petitioner, the highest bidder for a building site, challenged the refusal of his bid by a committee constituted under the Scheme for the disposal of residual properties. The core legal question was whether the 'Competent Authority' empowered to accept or reject bids was the Deputy Administrator (Residual Property), as defined in paragraph 1(e) of the Scheme, or the committee constituted under paragraph 19(2). The Supreme Court held that the definition of 'Competent Authority' in paragraph 1(e) is subject to the 'context' of the Scheme. Since paragraph 19 specifically delineates the authorities for accepting or refusing bids based on property type and value, it overrides the general definition in paragraph 1(e) in cases of conflict. Consequently, the committee acted within its lawful authority in rejecting the bid. The Court further rejected the argument that the committee's power was subject to the Deputy Administrator's prior approval, affirming the dismissal of the petition.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'Competent Authority' in paragraph 1(e) of the Scheme for the disposal of residual properties prevail over the specific provisions of paragraph 19?
- Is the committee constituted under paragraph 19(2) of the Scheme empowered to reject an auction bid independently of the Deputy Administrator?
- Can a new legal argument regarding the procedural validity of a decision be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not agitated before the High Court?
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN AND Another vs SULTAN AHMAD1982 SCMR 785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit where the respondent claimed a right of way over certain land parcels. The appellate court decreed the suit in the respondent's favor. During the pendency of the Regular Second Appeal filed by the defendants, one of the co-defendants died, and his legal representatives were not impleaded. The High Court consequently dismissed the appeal as having abated in toto, on the ground that the deceased was a necessary party without whom no effective decree could be passed. The petitioners, who were the remaining co-defendants, contended that because one petitioner exclusively owned one of the land parcels and the other petitioner jointly owned the second parcel with the deceased, the appeal could still be maintained to the extent of their respective interests. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to consider whether the non-impleadment of the legal representatives of a deceased co-owner results in total abatement of the appeal when the interests of the surviving co-defendants are distinct or separable.
Questions settled- Does the failure to implead the legal representatives of a deceased co-defendant result in the total abatement of an appeal if the surviving co-defendants hold distinct or separable interests in the suit property?
- Can surviving co-defendants maintain a regular second appeal to the extent of their own proprietary interests despite the death and non-substitution of a joint owner co-defendant?
- MUHAMMAD ZAHOOR vs THE STATE1982 PLD Peshawar 104 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-03-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs MESSRS COFCOT TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, HYDERABAD1982 PLC 323 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-12-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF, AND OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1548 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF, AND Others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AND OTHER1982 CLC 1548 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 844 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs ABDUL LATIF AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 398 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal challenges an appellate order that reversed a Rent Controller's decision and directed the eviction of the appellant-tenant. The respondents sought eviction alleging default in rent payment for three months. The Rent Controller found that the eviction application was premature regarding two months and that the default for the third month was merely technical. Consequently, the Rent Controller exercised discretion to refuse eviction, citing the tenant's long-standing tenancy, the absence of prior defaults, and the mala fide nature of the application following a civil suit filed by the tenant. The appellate court reversed this, holding that the four-day delay in payment constituted a default warranting eviction. The High Court, however, held that the Rent Controller acted within his jurisdiction by considering relevant circumstances to determine the default was not wilful. The Court ruled that an appellate authority should not interfere with the discretion exercised by a Rent Controller when such discretion is based on sound, relevant considerations. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the appellate order and restored the Rent Controller’s dismissal of the eviction application.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court interfere with the discretion exercised by a Rent Controller when such discretion is based on relevant considerations?
- Does a minor, technical delay in rent payment constitute wilful default justifying eviction under the W. P. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Is a long-standing tenancy and the absence of prior defaults a relevant factor for a Rent Controller to consider when exercising discretion against eviction?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF BUTT vs MESSRS INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN1982 PLC 885 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →