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.
- Miss SHAHIDA KHATOON vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 454 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-25Read full judgment →
- Miss SEEMA vs KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION ETC.1982 CLC 1911 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
- Miss SEEMA vs KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION ETC1982 CLC 1911 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
- Miss NASIRA SIDDIQUI vs Mrs. SAMAR RASHIDUDDIN1982 CLC 2480 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
- Miss KHURSHEED BANO vs CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE AND PRINCIPAL1982 CLC 499 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-13Read full judgment →
- Miss KHURSHEED BANO vs CHAIRMAN & MEMBER, SELECTION COMMITTEE, LIAQUAT MEDICAL COLLEGE, HYDIRABAD AND 2 OTHER Ss1982 SCMR 106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-08-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition challenging the refusal of medical college authorities to admit the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the selection committee was bound to accept a domicile certificate submitted after the date of interview in terms of the prospectus rules. The Supreme Court held that the case was governed by rule 12 of the prospectus, which explicitly mandates that documents received after the date of interview shall not be considered, and that any failure in producing documents on time results in disqualification or carry-over of the candidature to the next year rather than immediate acceptance. The key principle laid down is that prospectus rules regarding the strict timeline for submission of application documents must be adhered to, and authorities have no discretion to entertain belatedly filed documents unless expressly provided for by the rules.
Questions settled- Whether documents received after the date of interview can be considered for medical college admission under the prospectus rules?
- Does rule 32 of the prospectus confer any right on a candidate to claim additional time for completing application papers?
- What is the legal effect under the prospectus rules when a candidate fails to submit required documents before the date of interview?
- Miss AMTUL JAMIL SAMY vs SECRETARY, HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1982 SCMR 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition challenging the admission process for medical colleges in Punjab, specifically regarding the allocation of merit marks. The petitioner, a B.Sc. first divisioner, contested the admission of respondents who, despite having lower academic marks, were granted admission to King Edward Medical College, Lahore, due to the addition of 20 marks for National Cadet Corps (N.C.C.) training. The core legal question was whether the authorities acted without lawful authority by allowing N.C.C. marks to elevate candidates from a lower academic category above the petitioner, thereby altering the merit list. The Supreme Court held that the Prospectus for the Medical Colleges in Punjab (1980-81) explicitly provided for the addition of 20 marks for N.C.C. training to the aggregate marks of candidates to determine final merit. The Court ruled that the authorities acted within their lawful authority in applying these rules. The key principle laid down is that where statutory or regulatory provisions explicitly mandate the addition of specific marks for extracurricular training to determine merit, the courts cannot interfere with the resulting admission decisions, even if such rules disadvantage candidates with higher academic qualifications.
Questions settled- Can the addition of National Cadet Corps training marks to a candidate's aggregate score be considered a lawful basis for determining admission merit?
- Does the inclusion of extracurricular training marks in a merit list constitute an action without lawful authority when provided for in the admission prospectus?
- Can a court interfere with admission decisions made by authorities strictly following the merit criteria established in the relevant medical college prospectus?
- Mirza. MUBARAK BAIG vs ABDUL RASHID1982 CLC 2105 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
- Mirza ZAHID BAIG vs GHAFFAR AHMAD KHAN AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1429 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
- Mirza ZAHID BAIG vs GHAFFAR AHMAD KHAN AND OTHER1982 CLC 1429 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
- MIRZA vs THE S. H. O.1982 P Cr. L J 171 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed seeking a direction to the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) to register a criminal case regarding the murder of one individual and a murderous assault on another. The petitioner alleged that the police and the opposite party committed these acts, but the police refused to register the First Information Report (F.I.R.). The respondent argued that an F.I.R. regarding the same occurrence had already been registered by the opposite party, and thus, a second F.I.R. was legally impermissible. The core legal question was whether the police are obligated to register a cross-version F.I.R. when the petitioner's version of events conflicts with an existing F.I.R. regarding the same incident. The Court held that where a party presents a distinct counter-version of a cognizable offence, the police must record that version. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and directed the S.H.O. to receive the petitioner's written complaint and proceed in accordance with the law. The principle established is that the existence of an earlier F.I.R. does not preclude the registration of a cross-version F.I.R. when the allegations constitute a separate, conflicting account of the same incident.
Questions settled- Is the police officer in charge of a police station legally obligated to register a cross-version F.I.R. when a distinct counter-version of a cognizable offence is presented?
- Does the existence of an earlier F.I.R. regarding the same occurrence bar the registration of a subsequent F.I.R. containing a conflicting version of events?
- MIRZA vs Mst. HASNI1982 CLC 509. · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-09Read full judgment →
- Mirza TASAWAR ALI BEG vs ABDUR RASHID KHAN AND Another1982 SCMR 381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the maintainability of an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan and a request for leave to appeal regarding a property dispute. The Court held that the appeal filed by Mst. Feroze Fatima is maintainable as of right under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, as the High Court judgment was of variance and the property value exceeded fifty thousand rupees. Furthermore, the Court granted leave to appeal to her husband, Mirza Tasawar Ali Beg, in his separate petition concerning the same property, noting that hearing the cases together would avoid contradictory decisions and address important questions of law and fact. Regarding the prayer for stay of execution of the High Court decree, the Court ordered that the status quo be maintained, allowing the respondent to retain possession of the property while preventing the petitioner from interfering, thereby balancing the convenience of both parties pending the final decision of the appeals.
Questions settled- Is an appeal maintainable as of right under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when a High Court judgment is of variance and involves property exceeding fifty thousand rupees?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to avoid contradictory decisions in related cases involving the same property?
- What criteria does the Court apply when granting a stay of execution and implementation of a High Court decree pending appeal?
- Mirza SALEEM BAIG vs ITTEFAQ FOUNDRIES, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 1045 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-07Read full judgment →
- Mirza MUQUEEM BAIG vs ELECTION AUTHORITY HYDERABAD AND I5 OTHER1982 CLC 291 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Mirza MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs ABDUL HAMID AND OTHER1982 CL C 81 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-21Read full judgment →
- Mirza MUHAMMAD HANIF AND Another vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1982 PLD Lahore 641 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
- Mirza MUBARAK BAIL vs ABDUL RASHID1982 CLC 2105 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
- MIRZA KHAN vs Ch. MOHAN DASS1982 CLC 2258 · Balochistan High Court · 1981-11-15Read full judgment →
- MIRAJ MAHMOOD REHMANI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAHIMYARK HAN AND 21982 PLC (C. S.) 293 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mir SALEH UD DIN vs Qazi ZAHEERUDDIN1982 SCMR 559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the ejectment of the petitioner from a godown in Lahore. The petitioner claimed to be a statutory tenant under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and contended that he was neither served with notice nor impleaded in the eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent transferee against another party. After his plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and subsequent appellate and revisional proceedings determined that a fresh suit was barred under Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether a separate suit is maintainable by a person claiming to be a statutory tenant who was not a party to the eviction proceedings and was allegedly not served under section 30. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the conflicting positions regarding the maintainability of such a suit.
Questions settled- Whether a separate suit is maintainable by a person claiming to be a statutory tenant who was not impleaded in eviction proceedings?
- Does Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a fresh suit in regard to matters specified therein?
- Is a statutory tenant entitled to notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 before eviction?
- MIR MUHAMMAD vs KARACHI PIPE MILLS LTD.1982 PLC 875 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-12Read full judgment →
- Mir MUHAMMAD KHAN LASHARI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 312 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1981-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mir EAHADUR ALI vs CRIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, SINDH AHD OT HEIRS1982 CLC 2432 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
- Mir DASTGIR ALI AND 2 Other vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) AND 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 508 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-20Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD RAFI AND 2 Other vs Mian SHARIF AHMAD1982 PLD Lahore 380 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
- Mir BAHADUR ALI vs CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, SIND AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2432 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
- MIR ALI BUX TALPUR AND Others vs CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, SINDH1982 CLC 520 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-16Read full judgment →
- Mir AKHTAR KHAN KHATTAK vs THE STATE1982 PLD Peshawar 128 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal miscellaneous applications arose out of orders passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Peshawar, denying bail to the petitioner in cases registered under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, a public servant, was involved in the embezzlement and misappropriation of a substantial amount of public money. The High Court considered whether the magnitude of the misappropriated amount and the statutory prohibition under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justified withholding bail. Granting bail, the High Court held that the large amount involved is not by itself a ground to refuse bail, especially when the investigation is complete, tampering with evidence is unlikely, and trial commencement would take considerable time. The Court laid down that bail should not be withheld as punishment, and facts must not be artificially stretched to fit within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based purely on the maximum theoretical sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the mere fact that a large sum of public money is involved in an alleged embezzlement is sufficient ground by itself to refuse bail?
- Can bail be withheld as a measure of punishment when the investigation is complete and the trial is likely to take considerable time?
- Whether the court should look at the maximum statutory sentence or the punishment likely to be ultimately awarded when determining the applicability of the prohibitory clause under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- MINISTERIAL OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS1982 PLC (C. S.) 448 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-20Read full judgment →
- MINHAS INDUSTRIES, WAZIRABAD vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE46 TAX 147 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MIAN ZAKAUDDIN SHAFI AND 3 OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 132 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mian SHAH NAWAZ KHAN vs ALLAH DITTA, ETC.1982 CLC 1348 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1981-07-04Read full judgment →
- Mian MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER_ELCTION TRIBUNAL, SARGODHA AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2132 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mian MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER_ELCTION TRIBUNAL, SARGODHA AND OTHER1982 CLC 2132 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mian MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SARGODHA AND 11 Other1982 SCMR 775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, which permitted a meeting to consider a no-confidence motion against the petitioner, the Chairman of a Town Committee. The core legal questions involved the competence of the no-confidence motion regarding statutory time limits under the relevant local government legislation and the authority of the Deputy Commissioner to reschedule the meeting after the presiding officer aborted the initial proceedings. The Supreme Court declined to decide the abstract questions of law regarding the statutory time limits because ten out of eleven members of the Town Committee subsequently voted in favor of the no-confidence motion, demonstrating overwhelming lack of confidence in the petitioner. Consequently, the Court held that the case was not a fit one for discretionary constitutional interference on technical grounds and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a no-confidence motion against the chairman of a local council can be moved at any time after the expiry of six months or is strictly bound by the time limits in section 31 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the Deputy Commissioner possess the power to correct an unauthorized postponement of a no-confidence meeting by a presiding officer and fix a new date?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a no-confidence vote passed by an overwhelming majority of council members on the basis of procedural technicalities?
- Mian MUHAMMAD AYUB vs THE STATE1982 PLD Peshawar 130 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-04-06Read full judgment →
- Mian MUHAMMAD AMIN AND 7 Others vs AMANAT ALI1982 CLC 1770 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an order of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which upheld the Rent Controller's dismissal of an eviction application filed by the appellants against the respondent. The appellants sought the respondent's ejectment from the disputed property, alleging a landlord-tenant relationship and non-payment of rent. The respondent contested the application, denying the existence of any tenancy and asserting his own ownership of the property. The core legal question was whether the appellants had successfully established the relationship of landlord and tenant to warrant eviction under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that entries in the Excise and Taxation Department assessment registers, made without notice to the parties, do not carry a presumption of absolute genuineness. Furthermore, evidence showing the respondent paid property taxes as the responsible party contradicted the appellants' claim. The key principle laid down is that official assessment register entries are insufficient to prove a landlord-tenant relationship when contradicted by other evidence of possession and tax liability.
Questions settled- Does an entry in the Excise and Taxation Department assessment register create a presumption of absolute genuineness regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Can an eviction application under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 succeed if the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established?
- Is a concurrent finding of fact regarding the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship liable to be interfered with in second appeal?
- Mian MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND Others vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And Other1982 SCMR 408 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These service appeals under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 concern a seniority dispute between direct recruits and promotees/transferees within the Agricultural Engineering Department. The core legal questions were whether direct recruits could claim seniority from the date they became entitled to appointment following training, rather than their actual appointment dates, and whether ad hoc appointees could count their temporary service toward seniority. The Court held that the respondents, having been wrongfully denied appointment despite satisfying all conditions, were entitled to seniority from the date they became eligible for appointment. Conversely, the Court ruled that ad hoc appointments, being outside the prescribed rules, do not confer seniority rights. The key principle laid down is that the State is obligated to honor judicial declarations, and a civil servant wrongfully prevented from rendering service is entitled to all tangible benefits, including seniority, appurtenant to the right of appointment. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the respondents' seniority rights and rejecting the appellants' claims based on ad hoc service.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant claim seniority from the date they were entitled to appointment if they were wrongfully denied induction into service?
- Does an ad hoc appointment confer any right to seniority upon subsequent regularization?
- Is the State obligated to honor a judicial declaration regarding the entitlement of a civil servant to an appointment?
- Can ad hoc service be counted towards seniority under the West Pakistan Agricultural Engineering Services (Class II) Rules, 1963?
- Mian MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs WEST PAKISTAN ROAD TRANSPORT1982 SCMR 378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside the decree for specific performance of a contract granted in favor of the petitioner, an employee of the respondent-Board, and restored the dismissal of the suit by the trial court. The core legal question concerns the existence and enforceability of an alleged agreement to sell evacuee land made by the Chairman of the respondent-Board to its employee. The Supreme Court held that no valid, enforceable agreement existed between the parties because, at the material time, the property in question did not belong to the Board and remained part of the compensation pool vesting in the Central Government; consequently, the Chairman lacked the legal capacity to transfer property not owned by the Board, rendering any such commitment void. The Court also declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal, noting the impropriety of the transaction where a public servant sought to acquire property the department itself sought for its official needs. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether the Chairman of a statutory board can legally agree to sell property that does not vest in the board but belongs to the Central Government?
- Does an endorsement on a departmental communication constitute a valid and enforceable agreement for the specific performance of a contract of sale?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction with a High Court judgment setting aside a specific performance decree tainted by a lack of valid title?
- MIAN KHAN, LAL KHAN vs THE STATE JALAL Andother1982 PLD Supreme Court 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-16Read full judgment →
- MIAN KHAN vs THESTATE1982 SCMR 629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
- MIAN KHAN AND Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 471 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-11Read full judgment →
- Mian Haji MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND Others vs Syed WILAYAT ALI BOKHARY AND Other1982 SCMR 390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of a land allotment. The dispute arose over 254 kanals of land allotted to respondent Jiwana, who subsequently sold it to the petitioners. Following information that the allotment was fraudulent due to the prior satisfaction of the respondent's claim in another district, the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Authorities acted lawfully in cancelling the allotment based on findings of fraud and the respondent's denial of the transaction. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to rebut the findings of fraud, specifically noting that the respondent had consistently denied the sale and that the petitioners failed to produce the respondent or prove the validity of their claim. The Court affirmed that the burden of proof rested on the petitioners to establish the legitimacy of their title, and their failure to participate effectively or produce evidence justified the dismissal of their petition.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof lie with the petitioners to establish the legitimacy of a land allotment when fraud is alleged by Settlement Authorities?
- Can a land allotment be cancelled if the allottee denies the transaction and the claim has been previously satisfied elsewhere?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against the concurrent findings of fact by Settlement Authorities regarding the fraudulent nature of an allotment?
- MIAN GHULAM MURTAZA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE45 TAX 21 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mian GHULAM HASAN AND 4 Other vs AQEEL AHMAD KHAN ADDITIONAL1982 PLD Lahore 424 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-06Read full judgment →
- Mian DOST MUHAMMAD AND Others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND Other1982 SCMR 1078 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by petitioners displaced by the acquisition of land in Mianwali District for the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission in 1973-1974. The core legal question is whether the eviction of displaced persons from acquired land can be restrained through a temporary injunction pending their complete resettlement and receipt of alternative plots. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that once acquisition proceedings are completed and the land vests in the acquiring agency, the agency is entitled to possession, which cannot be defeated solely on the ground that resettlement arrangements remain incomplete. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the injunction application, while granting the petitioners a two-month extension to vacate the property by consent.
Questions settled- Can the eviction of displaced persons from acquired land be restrained on the ground that their resettlement arrangements are incomplete?
- Whether land vests in the acquiring agency upon the completion of acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation?
- Does an undertaking regarding resettlement given by the Provincial Government bind the statutory commission once land acquisition is completed?
- Mian BASHIR AHMAD vs SENIOR MEMBER (ESTABLISHMENT) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1982 PLC (C. S.) 118 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mian ALLAH BAKHSH AND Another vs Mst. BAKHAN BIBI Etc.1982 SCMR 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of a Civil Revision. The petitioners, nephews of the deceased landowner, claimed ownership of land based on a will, a gift, and mortgage redemption. The trial court found the will unproven but the gift established, granting a declaration for a portion of the land, but did not address the prayer for an injunction to protect their possession. The first appeal and revision petition were dismissed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the relief of injunction, as prayed for, could be refused or remain unaddressed when the petitioners were found entitled to a piece of land and were in possession, notwithstanding that their possession might exceed their exact share. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to further examine this aspect of the contention and temporarily restrained the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' possession except in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can an injunction to protect possession be refused or left unaddressed when a party is found entitled to land and is in possession, even if their possession exceeds their exact share?
- Does the issue of whether an injunction can be refused or remain unattended, despite established entitlement and possession, warrant further judicial examination?
- Is it permissible for a court to grant a declaration of ownership without addressing an accompanying prayer for an injunction to protect possession?
- Mian ALAUDDIN AND Another vs RASHID AHMAD1982 PLD Lahore 652 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-31Read full judgment →
- Mian ABDULLAH vs Mst. NISHAN BIBI AND Another1982 SCMR 814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that allowed a writ petition, ordering the eviction of a tenant from an evacuee property. The core legal question was whether a tenant, in summary rent proceedings, could challenge the landlord's title by claiming benami ownership, and whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction to set aside an appellate order that erroneously adjudicated on title. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller and the appellate authority in rent proceedings lack jurisdiction to determine complex questions of title regarding evacuee property transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Laws. The Court affirmed that a tenant, having admitted the tenancy, is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from denying the landlord's title. Furthermore, the Court established that rent authorities cannot go beyond the transfer documents issued by Settlement Authorities. Consequently, the High Court correctly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction to correct the District Judge's jurisdictional error, while preserving the parties' rights to litigate the title issue in a court of general jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a tenant in summary rent proceedings challenge the landlord's title by claiming benami ownership?
- Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to decide questions of title regarding evacuee property?
- Is a tenant estopped from denying the landlord's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction to set aside an appellate order that erroneously decides a question of title in rent proceedings?
- Mian ABDUL REHMAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAK1STAN AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 693 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-03Read full judgment →
- Mian ABDUL QAYYUM vs DR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN1982 SCMR 1024 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which affirmed a pre-emption decree. The petitioner had sold land, which the respondent successfully pre-empted in a civil suit. During the pendency of the pre-emption appeal, the petitioner filed a separate suit to challenge the validity of the original sale, seeking to avoid the pre-emption decree. The core legal question was whether a subsequent suit challenging the validity of a sale could defeat a pre-emption decree already obtained. The Supreme Court held that the pre-emption decree remained unaffected by the subsequent litigation. The Court reasoned that the right to pre-emption accrues upon the completion of a pre-emptiable sale, and once exercised and decreed, it cannot be defeated by subsequent attempts to retract or challenge the sale. The Court affirmed that such subsequent suits are often devices to defeat pre-emption rights and do not invalidate a final pre-emption decree. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed as the issue was foreclosed.
Questions settled- Does a subsequent suit challenging the validity of a sale affect a pre-emption decree already passed?
- Can a pre-emption decree be defeated by a subsequent attempt to retract the sale?
- Does Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to a pre-emption suit where the causes of action in the two suits are different?
- Mian ABDUL LATIF vs ZAHOOR DIN1982 SCMR 779 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the appointment of a receiver in a pre-emption suit. A consent decree for possession by pre-emption was passed in favour of the respondent, who deposited the requisite decretal amount, but execution was delayed due to the court file being damaged by floods, necessitating reconstruction. To safeguard the respondent's interests during the delay, the Senior Civil Judge appointed a receiver over part of the suit land and crops, an order affirmed by the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the appointment of a receiver was a fair and equitable interim measure necessitated by an act of God preventing execution, and declined to interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that courts may appoint a receiver as an equitable measure to protect a decree-holder's rights when execution is delayed through no fault of the parties due to extraordinary circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether a receiver can be appointed to manage suit land and crops when execution of a pre-emption decree is delayed due to the destruction of the court file by floods?
- Does the appointment of a receiver in such circumstances constitute a fair and equitable exercise of judicial discretion?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere in discretionary orders passed by lower courts where the petitioner has consented to the original decree and no injustice is shown?
- MI MANI MA D HUSSAIN vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1982 CLC 969 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-08Read full judgment →
- METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION LTD. vs SHEIKH GULZAR ALI & Co. LTD1982 CLC 2019 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
- METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION LTD. vs SHEIKH GULZAR ALI & Cc. LTD.1982 CLC 2019 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
- MESSRS WAZ1R ALI INDUSTRIES LTD. vs MAQSOOD KHAN1982 PLC 923 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-04-01Read full judgment →
- MESSRS VULCAN COMPANY LIMITED vs THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND Other1982 SCMR 430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner entered into a contract to supply air-conditioners, which were subsequently rejected by the Government, leading to a dispute referred to arbitration. During the arbitration proceedings, the petitioner sought to inspect a summoned departmental file to cross-examine a witness. The civil court and the High Court dismissed the request on the technical ground that no formal application was made under Order XI, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a party can be denied the inspection of a summoned file for cross-examination due to the absence of a separate formal application under procedural rules. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that procedural laws are meant to facilitate justice rather than act as a clog or technical hurdle. The Court set aside the lower orders, ruling that denying inspection on such hyper-technical grounds is impermissible, and directed the trial court to allow the petitioner to inspect the file for cross-examination.
Questions settled- Whether a party can be denied the inspection of a summoned departmental file for the purpose of cross-examination solely for want of a separate formal application under Order XI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is the Code of Civil Procedure intended to act as a clog on the proper dispensation of justice or as a facility for the smooth running of judicial proceedings?
- MESSRS VOLKERVAM (PAKISTAN) LTD. AND 2 OTHERS vs Syed MUSHTAQUE1982 PLC 761 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-23Read full judgment →
- MESSRS URDU DIGEST Printerss vs Hakeem MUHAMMAD IDREES AND OTHER1982 CLC 470 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-23Read full judgment →
- MESSRS UNITED DISTRIBUTORS LTD. vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND 21982 CLC 1047 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
- MESSRS UNITED DISTRIBUTORS LTD. vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 1047 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
- MESSRS UNITED BANK LTD. vs MESSRS KARACHI RUBBER INDUSTRIES AND 51982 CLC 2522 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-31Read full judgment →
- MESSRS UNITED BANK LTD vs MESSRS DELTA TRADING AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 179 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-22Read full judgment →
- MESSRS TAJ SEAFOOD INDUSTRIES, AND 2 Other vs MESSRS UNITED BANK LTD.1982 PLD Karachi 902 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-16Read full judgment →
- MESSRS TAJ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 9'PLD 1982 Karachi 378 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Five Letters Patent Appeals were filed against the judgment of a Single Judge dismissing suits brought by building contractors against the Federation of Pakistan, Pir Illahi Bakhsh Cooperative Housing Society, and individuals for money allegedly due under construction contracts, damages, and misappropriated building materials. The High Court considered whether the Federal Government was liable for the actions of a superseding Managing Committee, whether the contracts executed by the Society's Organizer were valid and binding on the Society, and whether the plaintiffs had established the quantum and value of the work executed. The High Court held that the suit against the Government was barred by limitation and lacked privity of contract. It determined that contracts executed by the Organizer were binding on the Society under the doctrine of indoor management. However, four of the appeals were dismissed as the contractors failed to prove the quantum of work done or value of materials left, and one suit was held unmaintainable due to lack of locus standi under Section 69 of the Partnership Act 1932. One appeal (L.P.A. No. 84/1968) was partly allowed, remanding the matter for accounts adjustment via a preliminary decree.
Questions settled- Is the Federal Government vicariously liable for the actions of a newly appointed Managing Committee following the supersession of a cooperative society by the Registrar?
- Whether contracts entered into by an office-bearer of a cooperative society outside formal authorization are binding on the society under the doctrine of indoor management?
- Does a newly registered partnership firm comprising additional partners have locus standi under Section 69 of the Partnership Act 1932 to sue on contracts executed by an earlier registered firm under the same name?
- What is the effect of non-production of measurement books and regular books of account by a contractor claiming outstanding payments under a construction contract?
- MESSRS T. V. SERVICE STATION vs MRS. PARVEEN ANWAR AFIRIDI1982 SCMR 261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court, which ordered the eviction of the tenant under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 on the grounds of personal requirement and damage to the property. The core legal question addressed is whether the landlord's personal requirement for his own residence was genuine and in good faith, given that he desired to live independently from his step-father in the disputed property, which is an annexe. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the finding of fact regarding the landlord's good faith requirement for personal residence is unexceptionable and that the landlord cannot be compelled to reside in another person's house. The key principle laid down is that an owner-landlord is entitled to seek eviction for personal residence to maintain an independent household, and such requirement is genuine even if the landlord currently resides with a relative, provided the premises sought belong to the landlord.
Questions settled- Whether an owner-landlord's requirement for a separate residence away from a step-father constitutes a good faith personal requirement under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can a landlord be compelled to reside in a house belonging to another person instead of seeking eviction for his own property?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement rendered by the lower forums?
- MESSRS SUPER PUNJAB COAL Co. LTD. vs DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & MINERAL1982 SCMR 351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for special leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging an order of the Lahore High Court. The petitioner had sought a stay order in a pending constitutional petition (W. P. No. 4883/79), which the High Court had refused on November 19, 1979. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to grant an interim stay order in a pending writ petition warranted appellate interference. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the grant of a stay order in a pending case is a matter resting entirely within the judicial discretion of the court seized of the main matter. The Court affirmed that where a High Court, despite admitting a writ petition for regular hearing, determines that a stay order is not just or fit, such an exercise of discretion does not suffer from any legal infirmity justifying interference by the Supreme Court. The key principle laid down is that the grant of interim relief remains discretionary and appellate courts will not interfere with such refusal absent a clear legal error.
Questions settled- Is the grant of a stay order in a pending case a matter of right or judicial discretion?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's refusal to grant an interim stay order in a pending constitutional petition?
- MESSRS SUNSHINE ESTATE LTD. vs ABDUL REHMAN, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, JOINT STOCK COMPANIES, LAHORE1982 PLD Lahore 301 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-12Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SUNSHINE BISCUITS LTD. vs MUHAMMAD HASSAN LODHI AND ANOTHERPLD 1982 Lahore 189' · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from the rejection of a declaratory suit filed by the appellant, Messrs Sunshine Biscuits Ltd., challenging a reference of an industrial loan dispute to arbitration by respondent No. 1. The appellant argued that it was not a member of respondent No. 2, the National Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd., a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for want of a statutory notice under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, a decision affirmed by the Additional District Judge. The core legal question was whether a suit against a co-operative society by a non-member requires a prior notice under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. The Lahore High Court held that the statutory bar requiring notice under Section 70 applies universally to any suit against a society or its officers touching its business, regardless of whether the plaintiff is a member. The appeal was consequently dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether a suit against a co-operative society requires a mandatory pre-institution notice under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925?
- Does the requirement of notice under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, apply to non-members as well as members of the society?
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for failure to serve a mandatory statutory notice?
- MESSRS STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND 3 OTHERS vs FAZAL1982 CLC 1162 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
- MESSRS STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND 3 Others S vs FAZAL1982 CLC 1162 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD RASOOL vs Messes GLOBE TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI1982 PLC 164 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-08-19Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SOUVENIR TOBACCO CO. LTD., KARACHI vs REHMAN NIZAR1982 PLC 233 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-04Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SOUTH BRITISH INSURANCE CO. LTD vs MESSRS AHMAD ABDUL GHANI1982 SCMR 1232 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of civil appeals arising from a dispute over a C.I.F. contract for the supply of cotton yarn, where the goods were never delivered. The core legal questions involved the liability of the local seller who transferred shipping documents and the liability of the insurance company under the marine insurance policy when actual shipment and loss of goods were not satisfactorily proved. The Supreme Court held that the local seller, having transferred the valid shipping documents in good faith under a C.I.F. contract, stood exonerated from liability, as the delivery of documents symbolised delivery of the goods. Furthermore, the Court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving actual shipment of the goods, rendering the insurance company not liable under the policy since reliance on unverified correspondence regarding transshipment was misplaced. The key principle laid down is that under a C.I.F. contract, a seller who transfers shipping documents in good faith is absolved of liability for non-delivery of goods, and an insurer cannot be held liable without proof of actual shipment and loss covered by the policy.
Questions settled- Whether a local seller under a C.I.F. contract is absolved of liability upon transferring the shipping documents in good faith to the buyer?
- Can an insurance company be held liable under a marine insurance policy without proof that the goods were actually shipped?
- Does the delivery of shipping documents under a C.I.F. contract constitute symbolical delivery of the goods placing the risk on the buyer?
- MESSRS SHAMBHUMAL HIRANAND & Co vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX1982 PLD Karachi 691 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SHALSONS FISHERIES LTD., KARACHI vs MESSRS LOHMANN & CO. AND Another1982 PLD Karachi 76 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs. 3,26,119.65 as damages for an alleged breach of contract by defendant No. 1 regarding the supply and import of a combined shrimp canning and cooking plant under the 'Pay As You Earn' Scheme, with defendant No. 2 impleaded as the local agent. The core legal questions involved whether a concluded and binding contract existed between the parties, which party committed the breach, whether defendant No. 2 incurred personal liability as an agent under Section 230 of the Contract Act 1872, and whether the claimed damages were substantiated. The High Court held that no concluded contract came into existence because material terms were unilaterally altered and varied without absolute and unqualified acceptance, and the agreement was explicitly subject to final confirmation. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to fulfill essential terms, including providing the agreed foreign bank guarantee and installment drafts. Additionally, under Section 230 of the Contract Act 1872, defendant No. 2 as an indentor bore no personal liability, and the alleged damages were unsubstantiated. The suit was consequently dismissed with costs awarded to defendant No. 2.
Questions settled- Whether acceptance of a contract proposal subject to alterations and variations constitutes a valid acceptance or merely a counter-proposal under Section 7 of the Contract Act 1872?
- Does a clause in a draft agreement stating that supply is subject to final confirmation prevent the formation of a concluded and binding contract?
- Can an indenting commission agent be held personally liable for a breach of contract under Section 230 of the Contract Act 1872 when the agent did not execute the contract on behalf of the foreign principal?
- Can a plaintiff claim damages for breach of contract where the expenses incurred were entirely voluntary or based on altered conditions that the plaintiff failed to fulfill?
- MESSRS SHAIKH GULZAR ALI & CO. LTD. vs LARKANA TEXTILE MILLS LTD.1982 CLC 1749 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-20Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SHAHZAD ICE FACTORY AND 2 Other vs SPECIAL JUDGE BANKING (II), LAHORE AND ANOTHBR1982 PLD Lahore 92 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 challenged an interlocutory order passed by a Special Judge Banking Court. The core legal questions concerned whether a Special Court, upon transfer of a pending suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, could grant leave to defend under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without issuing the prescribed special summons (Form 4 of Appendix B) and without a formal application supported by an affidavit, and whether High Courts can interfere with illegal interlocutory orders in constitutional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction, arbitrarily, and in violation of mandatory procedural requirements. The Court ruled that where a statute prescribes a specific procedure, it must be followed strictly, and that failure to issue proper summary summons and require a formal application vitiates the proceedings. Furthermore, the High Court held that it is fully competent to interfere with interlocutory orders in its constitutional jurisdiction if they suffer from jurisdictional defects or grave illegality.
Questions settled- Whether a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 can grant leave to defend without issuing summons in Form 4 of Appendix B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Can a court grant leave to defend a summary suit without an application supported by an affidavit from the defendant?
- Does the High Court have the power in constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with an illegal interlocutory order passed by a tribunal?
- What is the correct procedure to be followed by a Special Court when a suit is transferred to it under section 6 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- MESSRS SERVICO PAK1STAN S vs TRADING CORPORATION OF PAK1STAN LTD., KARACHI1982 CLC 670 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-19Read full judgment →
- MESSRS S.M. ILYAS & SONS vs MESSERS S. M. ILYAS & SONS Appellants COMMISSIONER_, OF. INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE1982 PLD Supreme Court 259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arises from two civil appeals brought by an assessee, a private limited company, against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan dismissing applications filed under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act. The core legal question was whether the disallowance of Rs. 18,000 paid as salary to a Director was permissible under Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income-tax Act, and whether a question of law arose from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's finding. The tax authorities and the Tribunal disallowed the deduction, finding that the payment lacked commercial expediency, was not a genuine business expenditure, and was merely an arrangement to reduce tax liability. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the Tribunal's finding that the payment was not made for bona fide commercial expediency was a finding of fact based on material evidence. Consequently, no question of law arose for reference to the High Court, and the appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a finding by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that salary paid to a director lacked commercial expediency constitutes a finding of fact or a question of law?
- Whether the Income-tax Department can disallow a director's remuneration under Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income-tax Act if the expenditure was not incurred for bona fide commercial expediency?
- Upon whom does the onus rest to prove that expenditure claimed as a deduction under Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income-tax Act was incurred bona fide for business purposes?
- MESSRS S. I. T. A. vs Syed ABRAR SAEED1982 PLC 412 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-05-16Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ROBERTS COTTON ASSOCIATION LTD. vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NORTH ZONE, LAHORE1982SCMR 403 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the deductibility of a loss incurred by the appellant, Messrs Roberts Cotton Association Ltd., arising from the sale of an actionable debt owed by Abbasi Textile Mills. The appellant, as part of a broader agreement between the Roberts Group and the Ali Group to transfer shareholdings, sold its outstanding debt against the Mill at a discount. The core legal question was whether this shortfall constituted a "bad debt" or "trading loss" deductible under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court held that the loss was not deductible. The Court reasoned that the transaction was a voluntary arrangement between two groups to sever business connections, rather than a loss resulting from the debtor's inability to pay or an expense incidental to the appellant's ordinary business operations. The Court affirmed the principle that a loss voluntarily incurred to accommodate third parties or facilitate a change in control, absent evidence of the debtor's insolvency or business necessity, does not qualify as a deductible business loss or bad debt.
Questions settled- Can a loss incurred from the voluntary sale of a debt to a third party be claimed as a 'bad debt' under the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- Is a loss resulting from an agreement to sever business connections considered a deductible 'trading loss' for tax purposes?
- Does a company's voluntary decision to sell an actionable claim at a discount to facilitate a change in shareholding constitute an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business?
- MESSRS RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD GHULAM ABBAS vs GHULAM ABBAS MESSRS Alia EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD1982 PLC 166 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-10Read full judgment →
- MESSRS REHABILITATION CONSTRUCTION & COMMERCIAL Co. AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1372 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-25Read full judgment →
- MESSRS RAMCHAND MANJIMAL COTTON GINNERS vs KHALID MEHMOOD1982 PLC 618 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-20Read full judgment →
- MESSRS QUALITY STEEL WORKS LTD., KARACHI vs M. ALAM AND 40 OTHERS1982 PLC 315 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-27Read full judgment →
- MESSRS PREMIER MERCANTILE SERVICE AND Another vs S. M. YOUNUS AND 2 Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 79 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, a partnership firm that converted into a private limited company without the landlords' consent, sought leave to appeal against an ejectment order. The core legal questions were whether the conversion of a partnership into a private limited company, where the members remained identical, constituted unauthorized subletting, and whether the landlords' continued acceptance of rent from the new entity constituted a waiver of their right to seek eviction. The Supreme Court held that the conversion created a distinct legal entity with different rights and liabilities, constituting unauthorized subletting regardless of the identity of the members. The Court affirmed that 'lifting the veil' of incorporation did not assist the petitioners, as the change in legal status was a unilateral act affecting the tenancy. Furthermore, the Court rejected the plea of waiver, finding that the landlords had consistently issued rent receipts in the name of the original partnership and had explicitly requested information regarding the new entity, thereby demonstrating a clear refusal to recognize the new company as the tenant. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the conversion of a partnership firm into a private limited company constitute subletting of rented premises?
- Can a tenant unilaterally change its legal status without the landlord's consent?
- Does the acceptance of rent by a landlord from a new entity, while issuing receipts in the name of the original tenant, constitute a waiver of the right to evict for subletting?
- Is it permissible to lift the corporate veil to determine the rights and liabilities of parties in a tenancy dispute involving a corporate entity?
- MESSRS PAN-ISLAMIC STEAMSHIP CO, LTD. vs S. M. NAQI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1944 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
- MESSRS PAN ISLAMIC STEAMSHIP Co. LTD. vs S. M. NAQI AND ANOTHER.1982 CLC 1944 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
- MESSRS PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, KARACHI vs MESSRS NATIONAL1982 PLD Karachi 463 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
- MESSRS PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION vs BASHIR AHMED1982 PLC 436 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-01Read full judgment →
- MESSRS PAK MALIK CONSTRUCTORS LTD., RA"IALPINDI vs GOVERNMENT OF1982 PLD Lahore 57 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-20Read full judgment →
- MESSRS NOON SUGAR MILLS LTD., BHALWAL vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI1982 SCMR 416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Messrs Noon Sugar Mills Ltd. against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning tax liability under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The petitioner, a public limited company, purchased heavy machinery from a non-resident Japanese company, Messrs Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Limited, under a contract requiring the petitioner to bear the tax liability on payments made for supervisory staff services. The Income-tax Officer assessed the non-resident company directly and subsequently held the petitioner to be an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source. The Appellate Tribunal partially ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the Lahore High Court answered the reference against the petitioner. The core legal question involves the interpretation of the phrase 'unless he is himself liable to pay any income-tax and super-tax thereon as an agent' under section 18(3-B) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Recognizing the conflict in judicial interpretation on this issue, the Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal to settle the question of law.
Questions settled- Whether a person responsible for making payments to a non-resident company is obligated to deduct tax at source under section 18(3-B) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, when an agency relationship is in question?
- Does a company have locus standi to file an appeal against an assessment made directly on a non-resident company?
- When is a taxpayer considered an assessee in default under section 18(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- MESSRS NAWAB & Co. vs YAQOOB AND 18 OTHERS1982 PLC 87 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-07-21Read full judgment →
- MESSRS NATIONAL MOTORS LTD. vs MESSRS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., KARACHI1982 CLC 236 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal arises from an order returning a plaint for presentation to a Special Court pursuant to section 6 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The appellants, who had advanced money to a third party (AEMCO) that procured a bank guarantee from the respondent-Bank in the appellants' favour, filed a recovery suit against the Bank. The core legal question was whether a beneficiary of a bank guarantee who is a creditor of the principal debtor can be termed a 'borrower' or deemed to have taken a 'loan' under the Ordinance so as to oust the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Court in favour of a Special Court. The Court held that the appellant was a creditor, not a borrower, and that a bank guarantee constitutes a loan only in relation to the borrower on whose behalf it is issued (AEMCO), not the beneficiary. Consequently, the Special Court lacked jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the suit restored before the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether the beneficiary of a bank guarantee who is a creditor of the principal debtor qualifies as a borrower under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does a bank guarantee issued on behalf of a customer constitute a loan extended to the beneficiary of that guarantee for the purposes of establishing Special Court jurisdiction?
- Does section 6 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 bar the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts in suits filed by a creditor against a banking company?
- MESSRS NATIONAL CONTAINERS Ltd. vs MESSRS NATIONAL SHIPPING1982 CLC 1630 · Sindh High Court · 1968-12-26Read full judgment →
- MESSRS NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION LTD vs EHSAN YOUSIF1182 PLC 925 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-31Read full judgment →
- MESSRS MERCK SHARP & IDOHME OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs SIND LABOUR1982 PLC 148 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal which reversed a Labour Court's decision and ordered the reinstatement of an employee with full back benefits. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction and powers of the Labour Appellate Tribunal to suo motu record additional evidence under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and whether the strict procedural requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied to labour proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the powers of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Labour Court are co-extensive under Section 38(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, allowing them wide latitude to examine facts and record additional evidence in the interest of justice without being strictly fettered by the technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court laid down the principle that while procedural technicalities of civil procedure do not strictly apply to labour tribunals, such tribunals must act fairly, and failure to object to procedural irregularities at the earliest opportunity constitutes a waiver.
Questions settled- Whether the Labour Appellate Tribunal has the power to record additional evidence during an appeal?
- Are the strict procedural requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to proceedings before a Labour Court or Labour Appellate Tribunal?
- What is the extent of jurisdiction of a Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance when examining a domestic dismissal order?
- Does a failure to object to a procedural irregularity before the tribunal constitute a waiver preventing a party from raising it in writ jurisdiction?