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.
- Mst. BA DARUNNISA AND Others vs Kh. HIDAYATULLAH AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2348 · Lahore High Court · 1971-08-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. AZMAT SULTANA vs Mst. FAKHAR JAHAN BEGUM AND 2 Other1982 SCMR 355 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition in limine. The underlying dispute arose from an ejectment application filed by the respondent-landlady against the petitioner-tenant under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, alleging personal need for the premises, default in rent payment, and property damage. While the Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, the Additional District Judge, Multan, reversed this decision on appeal and ordered the petitioner's eviction. The petitioner challenged this appellate order before the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction, which was subsequently dismissed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no irregularity in the High Court's order, concluding that the appellate judgment was neither passed without lawful authority nor contrary to law. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the eviction order, while granting the petitioner a three-month grace period to vacate the premises, conditional upon the continued payment of rent and a voluntary undertaking to surrender possession upon the expiry of that period.
Questions settled- Can a High Court dismiss a constitutional petition in limine if the impugned appellate order is found to be lawful?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding ejectment under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Can the Supreme Court grant a grace period for vacating premises upon the dismissal of a leave to appeal petition?
- Mst. AZIZA KHATUN ETC. vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD1982 SCMR 1136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging the compensation awarded for land acquisition. The petitioners, whose land in village Bar Khanzada was acquired under the Capital Development Ordinance, 1960, sought higher compensation rates, arguing that their land should be valued based on rates applied to land in village Chahan. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the compensation assessment made by the Deputy Collector and Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the assessment of market value is primarily a question of fact. Since the lower Tribunals provided cogent reasons for rejecting the petitioners' claim—specifically noting that village Chahan is situated closer to the urban area of Rawalpindi and thus possesses higher value—the High Court correctly determined that interference under its constitutional jurisdiction was not justified. The principle laid down is that where Tribunals have lawfully exercised their jurisdiction in determining factual questions like land valuation, the High Court will not interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is the assessment of market value for land acquisition primarily a question of fact?
- Can the High Court interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with a compensation award based on factual findings by competent Tribunals?
- Does the proximity of land to an urban area constitute a valid basis for differentiating compensation rates between villages?
- Mst. AZIZ BEGUM AND 2 Others vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 1803 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. AZIZ BEGUM AND 2 DINERS vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 1803 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. ASIFA ZAFAR vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE1982 CLC 2344. · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. ASGHARI KHANUM vs MAJ. IQBAL CHEEMA AND 3 Other1982 PLD Lahore 569 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from a dispute over evacuee property transferred to the petitioner by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Respondents challenged this transfer by filing a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The core legal question is whether a revision petition could be validly filed and entertained after the repeal of the parent statute under section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, or if such remedy was impliedly excluded by the repealing statute. The Lahore High Court held that the repealing Act provided exclusively for pending proceedings and remanded cases, thereby impliedly excluding the institution of new revision petitions whose limitation period had not expired prior to the repeal. The Court concluded that the Settlement Commissioner lacked lawful authority to entertain the revision petition and accordingly quashed the impugned order.
Questions settled- Whether a revision petition can be filed under a repealed statute after its repeal if the period of limitation had not expired before the repeal?
- Does section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 save the right to file a fresh revision petition under the repealed Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- What constitutes a pending proceeding within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975?
- Mst. ANWER.SULTANA vs MUHAMMAD AZAD ABBAS1982 CLC 2164 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. ANWER SULTANA vs MUHAMMAD AZAD ABBAS1982 CLC 2164 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMTUL RAHIM vs ABDUL GHAFFAR AND 4 OTHERS1982 CLC 1833 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMTUL RAHIM vs ABDUL GHAFFAR AND 4 OTHER1982 CLC 1833 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMIR BANO AND Another vs JAN MUHAMMAD AND Another1982 SCMR 1027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a pre-emption suit on the ground of limitation. The core legal question concerns the starting point of limitation for a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land where possession was held prior to the attestation of mutation and the final decree. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contention requiring examination of when possession is deemed taken under a sale—specifically regarding whether limitation runs from prior possession or from the attestation of mutation following a declaratory decree to which the pre-emptors were not parties—raises a point requiring consideration. Accordingly, the Court granted leave to appeal and issued an interim order restraining alienation of the land, laying down the principle that the starting point of limitation based on possession under a disputed sale transaction warrants formal appellate review.
Questions settled- From what date does limitation begin to run for a pre-emption suit where the vendee's possession of the disputed land predates the attestation of mutation?
- Does possession held under a power-of-attorney subsequently revoked constitute possession under a sale for the purposes of limitation in a pre-emption suit?
- Whether the date of attestation of mutation following a final declaratory decree serves as the date of possession for pre-emptors who were not parties to the earlier declaratory suit?
- Mst. AKHTARI SULTANA vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1982 CLC 687 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. AKHTAR NASIMI vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATIOR, ZONE "C", KARACHI1982 PLD Karachi 130 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged ejectment orders passed by Military Courts under Martial Law Order 20. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the Military Courts (Validation of Orders) Ordinance, 1980 was promulgated, which validated the impugned orders and deemed them to be orders passed under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, granting an aggrieved party the right to appeal within thirty days. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the authority to convert these pending writ petitions into statutory rent appeals, notwithstanding the expiration of the limitation period for filing such appeals. The Court held that it possesses inherent power to adopt procedures not expressly prohibited by law to foster justice. Consequently, the Court permitted the conversion of the pending writ petitions into appeals, reasoning that this procedure prevented injustice and provided both parties a fair opportunity for adjudication. However, the Court refused to convert a petition filed after the statutory limitation period had already expired. The key principle established is that a court may convert one form of legal proceeding into another to further the administration of justice where no express prohibition exists.
Questions settled- Can the High Court convert a pending writ petition into a statutory appeal when the nature of the impugned order has been changed by subsequent legislation?
- Does the High Court have the inherent power to adopt a procedure not expressly provided for by law to further the administration of justice?
- Can a writ petition filed after the expiry of the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal be converted into an appeal?
- Mst. AISHAN BIBI vs KHUDA BAKHSH AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2405 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. AISHA BEGUM AND Others vs CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1982 SCMR 1074 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1960-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions sought leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Baluchistan High Court dismissing constitutional petitions filed by declarant-owners and alienees. The petitioners had made numerous alienations of agricultural land between June 1967 and 1970, which were initially scrutinized and approved by land authorities under Land Reforms Regulation 115. Subsequently, the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission, acting via suo motu revision under paragraph 29 of the Regulation, re-examined and declared these alienations non-bona fide and void. The core legal questions involved the competence of the Chairman to act singly under paragraph 29, the retrospective curing effect of Ordinance XXIX of 1978 on any initial statutory infirmities, the exhaustion of review powers, the question of limitation regarding references by the Chief Land Commissioner, and the non-provision of a hearing to alienees. The Supreme Court held that the curative provisions of Ordinance XXIX of 1978 effectively validated prior statutory and structural omissions, that the power to review had not been previously exhausted, and that although alienees were not heard by the Chairman, substantial justice was done as they were heard in the High Court and before the Supreme Court regarding the lack of bona fides in the transactions. Leave to appeal was refused and the petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the legislature enact retrospective or curative legislation to validate past administrative decisions suffering from legal infirmities?
- Whether the power of the Chairman, Federal Land Commission to review under paragraph 29 stands exhausted if a member previously referred the case for review?
- Is the Chief Land Commissioner considered an aggrieved person for the purpose of limitation under paragraph 29 of Land Reforms Regulation 115?
- Does the failure to afford a hearing to alienees before the Federal Land Commission vitiate the proceedings where they are subsequently heard before the High Court and Supreme Court?
- Mst. AFSAR JEHAN BEGUM AND OTHRES vs SHAFEQA BEGUM AND Other1982 SCMR 946 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a residential property originally allotted to a displaced person, S. M. Bashir. Following the death of the original transferee, the property was resumed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner due to non-payment of the transfer price. The legal heirs of the deceased challenged the subsequent transfer of the property to Mst. Afsar Jehan Begum, alleging the resumption order was invalid. The core legal question was whether the resumption order could be sustained when notice was issued to a deceased person, no demand notice was served upon the legal representatives, and the department had accepted partial payment. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, holding that the resumption order was void ab initio because it was issued against a deceased party without proper notice to the legal heirs. Additionally, the acceptance of partial payment impliedly set aside the resumption. The Court further affirmed that legal heirs could not be deprived of their rights due to procedural delays, especially where the department failed to issue mandatory demand notices.
Questions settled- Can a property resumption order be valid if issued against a deceased person?
- Does the acceptance of partial payment by the settlement department impliedly set aside a prior resumption order?
- Is a transfer of property valid if the department fails to issue a demand notice to the legal representatives of the deceased transferee?
- Mst, SHARIFAN vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1552 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mst, KAMILA KHATOON AND Another vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 1035 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
- Mst, AISHAN BIBI vs KHUDA BAKHSH AND OTHER1982 CLC.2405 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
- Mss. BAGH CONSTRUCTION Co. vs TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KARACHI1982 CLC 1830 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
- Msr. SARDAR BEGUM AND 3 Others vs AHMAD KHAN AND 4 OTHER1982 CLC 2545 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-08-14Read full judgment →
- Msr. ILAM BIBI AND 8 Others vs MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2109 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
- MRS: GUL BANO AND 4 Others vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1120 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-12Read full judgment →
- MRS.IQBAL SIDDIQUI vs MUHAMMAD SARDAR KHAN1982 CLC 227 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-07Read full judgment →
- Mrs. ZEBUNESSA vs COMMISSIONER OF TAXES, DACCA ZONE, DACCA45 TAX 36 · Supreme Court of Bangladesh · 1980-08-03Read full judgment →
- MRS. SHAH JEHAN vs MESSRS PFIZER LABORATORIES LTD.1982 PLC 844 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-17Read full judgment →
- MRS. SHAFIA ABBAS vs MESSRS SKYROOMS LTD. AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 889 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →
- MRS. SAFIA AKRAM vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU &1982 PLC (C. S.) 196 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1982-01-17Read full judgment →
- MRS. SABIHA YOUSUF vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES1982 PLC 584 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-01Read full judgment →
- Mrs. S. R. MALIK vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, EDUCATION1982 PLC (C. S.) 175 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-12-16Read full judgment →
- MRS. RASHIDA SAYEED vs METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.1982 CLC 1039 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-13Read full judgment →
- MRS. PIROJA AND 4 Other vs Mst. SHARIFUNNISA AND Other1982 PLD Karachi 222 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-13Read full judgment →
- Mrs. NUSRAT BABAR vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, HEALTH1982 PLC (C. S.) 122 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MRS. NIMMI FRANCIS AND 5 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SAEED QURESHI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1703 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for recovery of damages filed by the legal heirs of the deceased under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1858, following a fatal motor vehicle accident. The core legal questions involved determining whether the defendant was liable for the death due to rash and negligent driving, and subsequently, the quantum of compensation payable to the plaintiffs. The court held that the defendant was liable, rejecting the defense of contributory negligence and the plea that the incident was an "act of God." The court established that while the deceased’s employment abroad was temporary, his earning capacity and life expectancy must be realistically assessed rather than based on speculative future increments. Consequently, the court fixed the deceased's life expectancy at 60 years and calculated the compensation by deducting one-third of the estimated earnings for personal expenses. The judgment affirms that in fatal accident claims, damages should reflect a balance between the deceased's actual earning potential and the economic realities of the jurisdiction, rather than relying on inflated projections of foreign employment.
Questions settled- What is the appropriate method for assessing damages in a fatal accident claim involving a deceased person employed abroad on a temporary project?
- Can a defendant escape liability for a fatal accident by pleading that the deceased was negligent in crossing the road?
- How should the court determine the life expectancy of a deceased person for the purpose of calculating compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1858?
- Does a guilty plea in a criminal court regarding a motor vehicle accident constitute conclusive proof of liability in a subsequent civil suit for damages?
- MRS. NAWAB DIN AHMED AND Another vs FAIZUR REHMAN (REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS)1982 PLD Karachi 89 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-09Read full judgment →
- Mrs. N. G. HASSAN ETC. vs TAXATION OFFICER, DISTRICT COUNCIL, SARGODHA1982 CLC 534 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-21Read full judgment →
- MRS. K. KAZMI vs Syed KAMALUDDIN SHAH1982 SCMR 576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an ejectment order against a tenant who challenged the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship following the death of the original landlord and the subsequent sale of the property. The core legal question was whether the respondent, as the successor-in-interest, had established the relationship of landlord and tenant and whether the tenant's failure to pay rent constituted a default warranting eviction. The Supreme Court held that the respondent, by virtue of the registered sale deed and proper notice, validly stepped into the shoes of the original landlord, thereby establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant without requiring further attornment. The Court further held that the tenant's prolonged failure to pay rent, based on purported confusion regarding the rightful claimant, was neither genuine nor reasonable. The principle laid down is that a successor-in-interest to a property acquires the status of landlord upon notice of the transfer, and a tenant cannot unilaterally withhold rent due to vague doubts about ownership, nor can such inaction serve as a basis for the court to exercise discretion in the tenant's favor regarding eviction.
Questions settled- Does a successor-in-interest to a property require a specific act of attornment by the tenant to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Can a tenant unilaterally withhold rent payments due to uncertainty regarding the identity of the rightful landlord after the original landlord's death?
- Does the failure of a tenant to pay rent based on purported confusion about ownership constitute a valid defense against an eviction petition for default?
- MRS. BUSHRA AITZAZ AHSAN vs SUPERINTENDENT, JAIL, KOT LAKHPAT, LAHORE1982 P Cr. L J 683 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-11Read full judgment →
- MRS. BILQUIS BEGUM AND 6 Others vs HATIM BHOY AND 3 OTHERS1982 CLC 1584 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-19Read full judgment →
- MRS. BILQUIS BEGU M AND 6 Others vs HATIM BHOY AND 3 OTHER1982 CLC 1584 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-19Read full judgment →
- MRS. BATOOL ZAFAR ARMED vs Sor. Ldr. (RETD.) MUHAMMAD AN WAR REHANI1982 CLC 1932 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
- MRS. BATOOL ZAFAR AHMED vs SOR. LDit. (RETD.) MUHAMMAD AN WAR REHANI1982 CLC 1932 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
- Mrs. ASMA IBRAHIM AND 2 Other vs SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION1982 PLD Karachi 236 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit for compensation arose from a fatal road accident where the deceased, Muhammad Ibrahim, died after falling from a bus owned by the Sind Road Transport Corporation. The plaintiffs alleged that the driver, acting in the course of his employment, started the bus rashly and negligently while the deceased was attempting to board, causing him to be dragged and thrown onto the road. The core legal questions concerned the liability of the employer for the driver's negligence and the calculation of pecuniary loss for the dependents. The Court held that the driver acted rashly by starting the bus without ensuring the safety of the intending passenger, thereby establishing vicarious liability for the defendant corporation. Relying on the Fatal Accidents Act, the Court determined that the deceased’s life expectancy was 65 years and calculated the total pecuniary loss accordingly. The principle established is that transport operators are vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees when they fail to ensure the safety of passengers boarding or alighting, and damages are to be assessed based on reasonable life expectancy and dependency.
Questions settled- Is a transport corporation vicariously liable for the death of a passenger caused by the rash and negligent driving of its employee?
- What is the standard life expectancy to be used when calculating pecuniary loss in fatal accident cases?
- Does the failure of a defendant to produce material witnesses allow the court to draw an adverse presumption against them?
- MRS. AKHTAR JAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND Another1982 SCMR 1134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of a writ petition challenging the non-renewal and rejection of an Overseas Employment Promoter's licence under the Emigration Ordinance 1979 following the death of the sole proprietor licensee. The petitioner contended that the licence and goodwill constituted heritable property under Muhammadan Law and that Rule 8(5) of the Emigration Rules 1979, which renders licences non-transferable, was inconsistent with Section 12 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the grant or refusal of a licence falls within the discretion of the Federal Government. The Court ruled that Rule 8(5) prescribing non-transferability is consistent with Section 12 of the Ordinance, as it constitutes a statutory condition of the licence. Furthermore, the Court established that a licence terminates upon the licensee's death and cannot be claimed as a heritable property right by legal heirs.
Questions settled- Is Rule 8(5) of the Emigration Rules 1979 inconsistent with Section 12 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 regarding the non-transferability of licences?
- Can a statutory trade or employment promoter licence be inherited as a piece of property by the legal heirs upon the licensee's death?
- Does an Overseas Employment Promoter licence terminate upon the death of the sole proprietor licensee?
- MRs, GUL BANO AND 4 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1120 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-12Read full judgment →
- MR. GOOLAM HUSEIN RAJWANY vs PARAMOUNT GLASS INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2476 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
- Moulvi ANSAR AHMAD KHAN AND Others vs ALI MARD KHAN1982 CLC 822 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
- MOTAL BAI (REPRESENTED BY HER HEIR) vs ABDUL AZIZ AND 4 OTHERS1982 CLC 862 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-21Read full judgment →
- MOTAL BAI (REPRESENTED BY HER HEIR) vs ABDUL AZIZ AND 4 OTHER1982 CLC 862 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-21Read full judgment →
- MOOSA BHUNJI (THROUGH LEGAL Heirs) vs HASHWANI SALES & SERVICES LTD.1982 PLD Karachi 940 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit for permanent injunction sought to restrain the defendants from constructing a multi-storey building on an adjacent plot, alleging infringement of customary privacy, easement rights to light and air, and violation of building regulations. The core legal questions concerned the existence of a customary right of privacy in the locality, the validity of the building plan approvals, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to a mandatory injunction for the demolition of completed structures. The Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a customary right of privacy or any actionable infringement of easement rights. Furthermore, the Court found that the building plans were lawfully approved by the relevant authorities under the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1979. The judgment establishes that customary rights must be proven with specific, reasonable evidence, and that a plaintiff cannot obtain an injunction against construction without demonstrating actual nuisance or a violation of personal rights. Additionally, the Court clarified that while silence does not always constitute waiver, a plaintiff must prove that construction is illegal or causes actionable nuisance to succeed.
Questions settled- Does a customary right of privacy exist in the Garden East area of Karachi?
- Can a plaintiff obtain an injunction against construction without proving actual nuisance or infringement of personal rights?
- Does the failure to pay proper court-fee on an amended relief for demolition preclude the grant of that relief?
- Does silence or delay in objecting to construction by a neighbor constitute waiver or estoppel?
- MOINUDDIN vs PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1784 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
- MOHSIN RAZA KHAN AND 9 Others vs MUHAMMAD KASIM AND ANOTHER1982 P Cr. L J 198 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-14Read full judgment →
- MOHOMED KARIMUDDIN AND 3 Other vs KANZA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI AND 4 Other1982 PLD Karachi 590 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-13Read full judgment →
- MOHARRAM ALI SHAH AND Another vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOOD AND Other1982 SCMR 1166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition filed by a depot-holder challenging the cancellation of his depot by the District Food Controller, Sheikhupura. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner had been denied the right to a fair hearing, specifically regarding the allegation that he was not associated with the preliminary inquiry conducted prior to the cancellation order. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contention was without merit. The Court observed that the petitioner had been issued a show-cause notice, had submitted a reply, and was personally heard by the District Food Controller before the adverse order was passed. Furthermore, the petitioner had also been heard by the Appellate Court and the Revisional Authority. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, establishing the principle that where an individual has been provided with a show-cause notice and afforded personal hearings at multiple stages of the administrative process, the requirement of natural justice is satisfied, and a claim of being condemned unheard cannot be sustained.
Questions settled- Can a party claim to have been condemned unheard if they were issued a show-cause notice and granted personal hearings by the original, appellate, and revisional authorities?
- Is a party entitled to be associated with a preliminary inquiry in administrative proceedings if they are subsequently given a full opportunity to be heard before the final order is passed?
- MOHARRAM ALI SHAH AND ANOTHER vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, FOOD DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2004 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
- MOHARRAM ALI SHAH AND ANOTHER vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, FOOD DEPARTMENT AND OTHER1982 CLC 2004 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
- MOHANLAL vs Haji ALI MOHOMED1982 CLC 2437 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
- MOHANLAL MAHRIBAL vs COMMISSIONER OE INCOME TAX46 TAX 67 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1981-01-15Read full judgment →
- MOHAN vs The STATE1982 SCMR 1143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal appeal filed by the appellant Mohan against his conviction for the murder of a young boy named Rajoo under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question considered by the Supreme Court pursuant to leave granted was whether the appellant's retracted judicial confession was worthy of reliance, alongside the evaluation of eyewitness testimony and recovery evidence. The court held that the conviction was well-founded based on the credible testimony of an independent eyewitness, corroborated by the recovery of a blood-stained knife and the retracted judicial confession, and accordingly dismissed the appeal, refusing to reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum. The key principle laid down is that a retracted judicial confession, when supported by natural ocular testimony and corroborative material such as the recovery of a weapon stained with human blood, can safely form the basis of a murder conviction.
Questions settled- Whether a retracted judicial confession is worthy of reliance when supported by corroborative evidence?
- Can a sentence for an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code be reduced to the period already undergone?
- Is the testimony of an eyewitness not named in the first information report reliable if the witness is independent and natural?
- MOHAMMADI TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EAST), KARACHI45 TAX 140 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD YOUSAF vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 914 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-27Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD YAMIN vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, ZONE C , KARACHI Arts1982 CLC 407 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD TUFAIL AND 3 Others vs BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) PUNJAB1982 CLC 342 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-23Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD SIDDIQUE RAFI AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS SAMI1982 PLC 424 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD SHAM KHAN vs MESSRS KARACHI MILK PLANT, HYDERABAD1982 PLC 314 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-04-20Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD SHAIQ vs MESSRS KOHINOOR BATTERY MANUFACTURERS LTD.1982 PLC 175 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-20Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD SHAFI vs DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 642 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-15Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD SARWAR vs The STATE1982 SCMR 257 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of the petitioner's bail application by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in a murder case on grounds of subsequent police re-investigation finding co-accused innocent, alleged discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, and the duration of incarceration. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, being specifically named in the first information report as the principal offender who fired a fatal shot at a vital part of the deceased's body, could not claim the benefit of doubt merely due to the exoneration of co-accused during re-investigation, nor could a detailed appreciation of evidence be undertaken at the bail stage. The Court laid down the principle that police re-investigation clearing some co-accused does not automatically entitle the main accused to bail, and appreciation of potential conflicts between ocular and medical evidence is premature at the bail stage.
Questions settled- Does the exoneration of co-accused during police re-investigation automatically entitle the main accused to post-arrest bail?
- Can a court undertake a detailed appreciation of conflicts between ocular and medical evidence at the bail stage?
- Is delay in the commencement of a trial per se sufficient ground to warrant interference by the Supreme Court in a bail matter?
- MOHAMMAD SADIQ vs Messers COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN1982 PLC 228 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-26Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD RAMZAN vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 688 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD NASIM FAROOQUI vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd., KARACHI1982 PLC 299 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-04-15Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD MUNIR vs AHMAD ALLY MEMON AND 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 425 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from constructing a multi-storeyed building (ground plus four floors) on an adjacent plot in Garden East, Karachi, beyond two storeys and a covered area exceeding one-fourth of the plot size. The plaintiff contended that the proposed high-rise construction violated original lease conditions, the Collector's Circular of 1938, building regulations under a town planning award, and infringed easement rights of light, air, and privacy. The defendants countered that the circular lacked statutory force, building permissions were validly granted by competent municipal authorities, and easement rights were not infringed. The High Court dismissed the suit, holding that the 1938 Circular was merely administrative guidance without statutory force, subsequent town planning decisions allowed multi-storeyed construction, and non-production of a no-objection certificate from neighbours did not invalidate the approval. It further held that customary rights of privacy must be explicitly pleaded and strictly proved by evidence, which the plaintiff failed to establish.
Questions settled- Whether an administrative circular issued by a Collector restricting building height possesses statutory force or constitutes a covenant running with the land?
- Whether the lack of a No Objection Certificate from adjacent property owners invalidates building plan approval granted by a competent development authority?
- Can a customary right of privacy or pardah be recognized without specific pleading and evidence demonstrating its immemorial, certain, and continuous practice in the locality?
- MOHAMMAD MOOSA vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND1982 PLC (C. S.) 362 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD JAMEEL vs Mst. SARWAR JAHAN AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 655 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-26Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATJON, LAHORE1982 PLC 346 · Labour Court · 1981-07-25Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MOHAMMAD YAQOOB AND Another1982 SCMR 926 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had recalled an interim stay order previously granted in a writ petition. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court acted appropriately in vacating the stay order after it was established that the respondent had already obtained possession of the disputed land prior to the issuance of the status quo order, and that the petitioner had subsequently been charged with criminal trespass under the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the recall of the interim stay was eminently proper given the factual circumstances regarding the delivery of possession. The Court held that where possession has already been transferred to a party before an interim order of status quo is passed, the continuation of such an order is unjustified, particularly when the petitioner's conduct involves alleged criminal trespass. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's discretion in managing interim relief in writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether an interim order of status quo can be maintained when possession of the disputed property has already been delivered to the respondent?
- Is the recall of an interim stay order justified when the petitioner is alleged to have committed criminal trespass on the subject property?
- MOHAMMAD HASHIM MEMON vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND AND 20 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 423 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD HANIF vs Mst. SARAP. L D 1982 Karachi 182 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-15Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD FAROOQ KHAN vs KARACHI CLUB, KARACHI1982 PLC 621 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-31Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD DEEN MALIK AND ANOTHER vs IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 441 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-28Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD AYOOB vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 335 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-01Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD ASGHAR vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 406 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1980-05-06Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD ANWAR vs Syed IMAM1982 CLC 436 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-09Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN vs PRESIDENT, SUMMARY MILITARY COURT1982 P Cr. L J 441 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-05Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD AFZAL vs PRESIDENT SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, RAWALPINDI1982 P Cr. L J 442 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-17Read full judgment →
- MOEEN AFRIDI vs CAPT. M. R. CHOUDRY1982 CLC 1116 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
- MOBIN vs MESSRS HUSSAIN TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI1982 PLC 195 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-18Read full judgment →
- MNHAMMAD RASHID KHAN vs DR. MOHAMMAD BASHIR CHAUHAN AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 241 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MMSRS NIZARI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. vs QAMRUDDIN M.1982 PLD Karachi 774 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-06Read full judgment →
- MITHO vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1133 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
- Mit. MASOODA BEGUM AND 6 OTHER vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1982 CLC 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
- Mistri SARDAR ALI vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1982 CLC 1844 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
- Mistri ABDUL AZIZ vs Mistri MUHAMMAD YASIN AND Other1982 SCMR 1083 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a dispute over the transfer of a plot originally allotted through a Provisional Transfer Order to the respondents, who are the sons of the petitioner. The core legal question concerns whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner was justified in refusing to cancel the Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) issued in favor of the second respondent based on a subsequent agreement of association, and whether the petitioner had established the approval of a prior agreement of association in his favor. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove that his alleged agreement of association was duly filed and approved by any competent settlement authority, meaning no fraud was established and the first respondent was legally competent to enter into the subsequent agreement of association with the second respondent. Furthermore, once the P.T.D. was issued, it assumed finality regarding the property's transfer, placing it outside the compensation pool and precluding interference by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the executive side. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner can cancel a Permanent Transfer Deed on the executive side after the property has gone out of the compensation pool?
- Does an unapproved and unverified agreement of association confer enforceable rights regarding the transfer of property under settlement laws?
- Does a Permanent Transfer Deed assume finality precluding executive cancellation when no prior valid agreement of association is established by a rival claimant?
- Miss ZARINA JUMA vs KHURSHID ALAM1982 CLC 987 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-05Read full judgment →
- Miss ZARINA JUMA vs KHURSHID ALA M1982 CLC 987 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-05Read full judgment →
- Miss TALAAT IQBAL vs SECRETARY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENTOF1982 CLC 274 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
- Miss SURRIYA SULTANA BUTT vs DEPUTY INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE AND ANOTHER1982 P Cr. L J 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-07Read full judgment →
- Miss SHAHNAZ BANO vs SECRETARY, STATISTICS DIVISION AND OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 611 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
- Miss SHAHIDA PERVEEN vs THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB1982 CLC 574 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →