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.
- MESSRS MEHAR COTTON FACTORY, RAHIMYARKHAN-- Petitioner vs MESSRS1982 PLD Karachi 414 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSRS MEC SHIPBREAKERS LTD. vs MESSRS PEASON INVESTMENT INC. AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Karachi 701 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment from the Sindh High Court arises from a suit filed by Messrs Mec Shipbreakers Ltd. against Messrs Peason Investment Inc. and another for the recovery of damages for breach of contract and for permanent and temporary injunctions to restrain the defendants from sailing the vessel m/t IRIS out of the jurisdiction of the court, alongside an application for attachment before judgment. The core legal questions involved the interpretation and application of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 and Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the conditions required for pre-judgment attachment and temporary injunctions in commercial matters. The court held that an order for attachment before judgment cannot be granted merely because the sole property of the defendant within jurisdiction is mobile or because the plaintiff fears obtaining a paper decree; the plaintiff must specifically plead and establish that the removal or disposal of property is tainted with the actual intention to delay or defeat any decree that may be passed. Furthermore, the court held that temporary injunctions to restrain a breach of contract will not be granted where a concluded contract is not prima facie established and where monetary compensation provides an adequate remedy. Both applications were dismissed.
Questions settled- Can an order for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be issued merely because the defendant's property is mobile and may leave the jurisdiction of the court?
- What are the essential pre-conditions that a plaintiff must establish to obtain an attachment of property before judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be granted when the existence of a concluded contract is not prima facie established?
- Does a claim for monetary damages for breach of contract bar the grant of a temporary injunction on the ground that damages constitute an adequate relief?
- MESSRS MANDLI INDUSTRIES LTD. vs DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND 31982 P Cr. L J 258 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-16Read full judgment →
- MESSRS Macdonald LAYTON & COMPANY LIMITED vs MESSRS ASSOCIATEDP L. D 1982 Karachi 786 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSRS M. A. Yahyas vs MESSRS NAWAB ABDUL MALIK Estates1982 SCMR 1160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from an ejectment order passed against the appellant-tenants on the ground of default in rent payment. The Rent Controller had passed a tentative rent order directing the appellants to deposit monthly rent before the 15th of each calendar month, allowing past deposits in an earlier rent case to be treated as deposits in the ejectment case. The respondents subsequently filed an application to strike off the appellants' defence due to non-compliance with the deposit order. The appellants failed to produce deposit receipts before the Rent Controller, and when the account was eventually produced before the appellate court, it revealed unexplained delays in deposits for several months. The High Court affirmed the striking off of the defence. The Supreme Court held that since the appellants were on notice for non-compliance for the entire period and failed to offer any explanation for the specific delays, there was no denial of a proper opportunity to meet the case. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant's defence can be struck off for non-compliance with a tentative rent order if the rent was deposited late without any explanation?
- Does a general allegation of non-compliance in an application to strike off defence deprive the tenant of a proper opportunity to defend if the tenant failed to produce deposit receipts?
- Can a tenant escape the consequences of delayed rent deposits by claiming their advocate failed to inform them of the specific deposit order?
- MESSRS M. A. HUSSAIN S. MIRZA & Co., Daccas vs MESSRS PAKISTAN1982 SCMR 1202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellants' suit for damages for short delivery of goods against the respondent consignor. The core legal questions involved whether the consignor had shipped the full contracted quantity of M.S. Bars despite bills of lading containing the qualification 'said to be', the evidentiary value of short landing certificates, and whether appellate relief could be granted against non-appealing parties under procedural rules. The Supreme Court held that the qualification 'said to be' in bills of lading and mate receipts was attributable to the standard commercial practice of not weighing or counting iron bundles at shipment, and that short landing certificates and survey reports were inconclusive given the unexamined loose goods at the port and lack of weight verification at destination. The Court upheld the Division Bench's dismissal of the suit and affirmed that discretionary appellate powers to grant relief against other parties should not be exercised where liabilities are severable and claims were not pressed at trial. The key principle laid down is that standard commercial practices regarding the shipment of heavy metal goods qualify shipping documents without implying default, and short landing allegations require strict, uncontroverted proof of shortage at the point of shipment and discharge.
Questions settled- Whether the qualification 'said to be' in bills of lading and mate receipts alone establishes short shipment of goods?
- Do short landing certificates constitute conclusive proof of short delivery when goods are found in a loose condition at the port?
- Can an appellate court exercise discretionary powers under Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to grant relief against non-appealing defendants whose liabilities are severable?
- What is the evidentiary significance of loading tally sheets and commercial customs in determining the quantity of heavy metal goods shipped under a C & F contract?
- MESSRS LALAZAR CINEMA vs KHAN BAHADUR1982 PLC 689 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
- MESSRS KORONGI SIZING WORKS vs MUHAMMAD RAHIM1982 CLC 2455 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
- MESSRS KHAWAJA AUTOCARS LTD vs Syed ABDUL REHMAN1982 PLC 128 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-27Read full judgment →
- MESSRS KEHKASHAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs SHAMSUL ISLAM AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 872 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
- MESSRS KAUSAR OIL & GENERAL Millss vs MESSRS MUHAMMAD AMINPLD 1982 Karachi 717. · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-09Read full judgment →
- MESSRS KARACHI TEXTILE DYEING & PRINTING WORKS vs ALEY AND 7 OTHERS1982 PLC 110 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-10Read full judgment →
- MESSRS KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. vs ALLAH RAKHA1982 PLC 230 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-31Read full judgment →
- MESSRS KAGHAN IMPEX AND Another vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Lahore 608 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
- MESSRS JAMIA INDUSTRIES LTD vs KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION1982 PLD Karachi 870 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
- MESSRS J. TYLER & Co.S vs MESSRS UNITED BANK LTD.1982 PLD Karachi 639 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-07Read full judgment →
- MESSRS INTERNATIONAL LABORATORIES LTD. vs EMPLOYEES' UNION AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Supreme Court 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which had set aside an order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal. The High Court had held that the dismissal of three workers was without lawful authority because they were not served with a second show-cause notice after the completion of the domestic inquiry. The core legal question was whether Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, requires an employer to issue a second show-cause notice to an employee after the inquiry is completed but before the order of dismissal is passed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that Standing Order 15(4) does not, in its terms, require the service of a second show-cause notice or the furnishing of a copy of the inquiry report. The Court reaffirmed its previous rulings that such requirements cannot be read into the statute under the guise of natural justice unless explicitly provided.
Questions settled- Does Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 require an employer to issue a second show-cause notice after the completion of an inquiry?
- Is the furnishing of a copy of the inquiry report to an accused workman a mandatory requirement under Standing Order 15(4) before dismissing them?
- Can the requirement of a second show-cause notice be read into Standing Order 15(4) under the principles of natural justice?
- MESSRS INDHARA INDUSTRIES LTD.; KARACHI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1982 PLD Karachi 260 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns objections filed against an arbitration award in a commercial dispute regarding the supply of vehicles. The core legal question was whether an arbitration award, which failed to provide detailed reasons for the decision, could be remitted to the arbitrator for clarification under the newly enacted Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981. The High Court held that the award, which lacked sufficient reasoning, must be remitted to the arbitrator. The Court directed the arbitrator to submit a revised award containing reasons in sufficient detail within three months, noting that the failure to do so would render the award void. The Court established that Section 26-A of the Arbitration Act, 1940, mandates that arbitrators provide a 'speaking award' with reasons in 'sufficient detail' to enable judicial review of any questions of law. This requirement applies to pending proceedings, and 'sufficient' is interpreted as adequate for the purpose of enabling the Court to understand the issues and findings involved.
Questions settled- Does the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 require an arbitrator to provide reasons for an award in sufficient detail?
- What is the consequence under the Arbitration Act, 1940, if an arbitrator fails to provide sufficient reasons for an award?
- Can an arbitration award be remitted to the arbitrator for clarification if it lacks sufficient detail regarding the reasons for the decision?
- Does the requirement for a speaking award under the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 apply to arbitration proceedings pending at the time of the Ordinance's commencement?
- MESSRS INAYATULLAH & SONS vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS1982 CLC 786 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-01Read full judgment →
- MESSRS HYDARI INDUSTRIES LTD. vs MESSRS HASHWANI SALES & SERVICES LTD.1982 CLC 1179 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-09Read full judgment →
- MESSRS HOTEL METROPOLE LTD. vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN,1982 CLC 1682 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-19Read full judgment →
- MESSRS HOTEL METROPOLE LTD. vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1682 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-19Read full judgment →
- MESSRS HASHMI CAN Co. LTD. vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1982 PLC 1034 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
- MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD. vs MESSRS AHMED ABDUL GANI TEXTILE MILLS AND 91982 CLC 936 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
- MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD. vs MBSSRS AHMED ABDUL GAN[ TEXTILE MILLS AND 91982 CLC 936 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
- MESSRS GENERAL TYRE & RUBBER COMPANY, OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI vs JAHANGIR MASIH1982 PLC 506 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-14Read full judgment →
- MESSRS FAZAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs MESSRS SATTAR COTTON GINNING1982 CLC 97 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-30Read full judgment →
- MESSRS FATIMA EXPORT CORPORATION AND Another vs HABIB BANK LTD., FAISALABAD1982 PLD Lahore 436 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
- MESSRS EVEREADY PICTURES LTD.. vs CHAMAN BEGUM1982 PLD Karachi 770 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged an order of the Rent Controller directing their ejectment from the disputed premises on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal and bona fide requirement. The core legal questions involved whether the absence of a formal notice under section 13-A of the relevant rent restriction ordinance vitiates a default proceeding when the tenant has actual knowledge of the property transfer, and whether the landlady established a bona fide personal requirement for her son. The Sindh High Court held that where a tenant has actual knowledge of the transfer of property and has paid rent to the new landlord, a formal notice under section 13-A is not mandatory and its absence does not preclude a finding of default. The Court further held that the landlord's oath regarding personal requirement, supported by consistent pleadings and unshakeable cross-examination, satisfies the requirement of bona fides. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether service of notice under section 13-A of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance is mandatory when the tenant has actual knowledge of the transfer of property?
- Does a tender of rent for seven months together constitute a valid tender under section 13(2)(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance?
- Is an assertion of personal requirement by a landlord on oath sufficient to establish bona fides under section 13(4) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance if left unshaken in cross-examination?
- MESSRS ELNAVAL NAVIGATION Co vs RANA SHIPPINGS, KARACHI Judgment1982 PLD Karachi 104 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-28Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ELECTRIC AND RADIO CORPORATION vs MESSRS PAKISTAN STEEL MILL1982 CLC 1679 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs EASTERN SHIPPING Co. vs NEWZEALAND INSURANCE Co. LTD. ETC.1982 CLC 1914 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →
- MESSRS DELPHI PROMOTERS LTD., KARACHI vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, ISLAMABAD1982 PLD Karachi 598 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-23Read full judgment →
- MESSRS D. H. L. INTERNATIONAL LTD. vs MESSRS N. T. C. LTD.1982 CLC 1360 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These interconnected appeals arose from a common order of the learned Single Judge passed in a suit for specific performance of contract, accounts, damages, and permanent injunction relating to a courier services joint venture and agency agreement. The core legal questions involved whether the requirements for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were met, whether a direction to file quarterly business accounts was lawful, and whether an implied negative covenant could be enforced by a prohibitory injunction under Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 at the interlocutory stage. The court held that the power to order attachment before judgment or restraint under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 is extraordinary and cannot be invoked merely because a foreign company re-exports its articles in the ordinary course of business without proof of intent to obstruct or delay execution. The court further held that a direction to file quarterly accounts was justified since the plaintiff claimed damages based on business accounts, but refused to grant a temporary prohibitory injunction based on an alleged implied negative covenant where the existence of a five-year contract period and the negative covenant itself required recording of evidence at trial. The key principles laid down are that Order XXXVIII Rule 5 requires strict proof of intent to defeat a prospective decree and cannot be used as a matter of course against foreign firms re-exporting goods, and that implied negative covenants requiring trial evidence will not be enforced by interlocutory injunction.
Questions settled- Whether simpliciter exporting of machinery and equipments by a foreign company in the ordinary course of business warrants an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a direction for filing quarterly accounts be lawfully issued against a defendant in a suit where the plaintiff has claimed accounts and damages for breach of an agency agreement?
- Whether an implied negative covenant can be inferred and enforced by way of a prohibitory injunction under Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 at the interlocutory stage when the very duration of the contract is disputed and requires trial evidence?
- MESSRS CONTINENTAL GRAINS Co. vs MESSRS NAZ BROTHERS1982 CLC 2301 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-11Read full judgment →
- MESSRS CONTINENTAL GRAINS Co. vs Messes NAZ BROTHER1982 CLC 2301 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-11Read full judgment →
- MESSRS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES (PAKISTAN) vs ALI HUSSAIN1982 CLC 1241 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order passed by the Rent Controller under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, directing the ejectment of the appellant firm from the tenement in question upon the retirement of the landlord from government service. The core legal questions involve whether the landlord's ownership of a property in Islamabad bars him from seeking ejectment under section 14 due to the expression "any locality", whether the issue of good faith or bona fide personal need can be examined under section 14, and whether a rent application is maintainable against a firm rather than its individual partners. The Sindh High Court held that the phrase "any locality" in subsection (2) of section 14 is to be construed with reference to the city where the tenement is situated, excluding properties in another city such as Islamabad; that the question of good faith or bona fide need is irrelevant under section 14 because the legislature deliberately omitted those words; and that a registered firm, being a juristic person, can be sued directly in rent proceedings. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with a two-month extension granted to hand over vacant possession.
Questions settled- Does the expression 'any locality' in section 14(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 include a property owned by the landlord in a different city such as Islamabad?
- Can the question of good faith or bona fide personal need be examined by a Rent Controller in an application filed under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Whether a rent application can be filed directly against a partnership firm as a tenant rather than against its individual partners?
- What is the effect of the death of a managing partner on a partnership firm in the context of maintainability of rent proceedings?
- MESSRS COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs REHMATULLAH1982 CLC 2471 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-12Read full judgment →
- MESSRS COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs RE HMATULLAH1982 CLC 2471 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-12Read full judgment →
- MESSRS CANAL PETROL SERVICE, LARKANA, SIND vs MESSRS PAKISTAN1982 PLD Karachi 121 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-30Read full judgment →
- MEssRs CAKE & OIL PRODUCTS LTD. AND ANOTHER vs COLLECTOR &1982 CLC 2032 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-11Read full judgment →
- MESSRS CAKE & OIL PRODUCTS LTD. AND ANOTHER vs COLLECTOR &1982 CLC 2032 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-11Read full judgment →
- MESSRS BALAGAMWALA OIL MILLS LTD., Karachis vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE ANDANOTHER1982 PLD Karachi 233 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-15Read full judgment →
- MESSRS BAKHSH TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs PAKISTAN AND OTHER1982 SCMR 497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a High Court judgment dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition against departmental decisions imposing penalty and confiscation under the Central Excise Rules 1944. The appellant, a textile manufacturer, was penalised for failing to maintain up-to-date entries in its daily stock register and for storing finished excisable goods in an unapproved place. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether maintenance of stock accounts under Rules 51 and 53 required proof of mens rea or constituted an absolute statutory liability, and whether non-compliance could be excused on grounds of practical difficulty or pending approval. The Supreme Court held that the penal provisions of Rules 210 and 226 create absolute statutory liability where no mental element (mens rea) is required to be proved beyond the factual breach of failing to maintain registers or store goods in approved places. The Court laid down that factual determinations made by departmental tribunals cannot be re-agitated in constitutional jurisdiction, and absolute penal provisions in tax statutes apply strictly upon the occurrence of the prohibited act.
Questions settled- Is proof of mens rea necessary to establish an offence under Rules 210 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules 1944?
- Does rule 53 read with rule 47 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 create an absolute obligation to enter daily stock accounts on the same day?
- Can a new factual contention be permitted to be raised for the first time in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does storing packed excisable goods in a place not approved by the Collector constitute an actionable breach under the Central Excise Rules 1944?
- MESSRS ATTOCK OIL Co. LTD., RAWALPINDI vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME1982 SCMR 459 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-25Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs THE PRESIDENT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND Other1982 SCMR 1152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil review petitions challenge a previous judgment of the Supreme Court which held that a company supplanted by the Custodian of Enemy Property, while remaining an alien enemy, lacks the status of an 'aggrieved party' to challenge orders in the High Court. The petitioner contended that the Court's previous reasoning improperly allowed subordinate legislation, specifically the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1965 and the Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order, 1965, to modify the definition of 'aggrieved party' under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962, arguing that such a modification requires constitutional legislation. The Supreme Court rejected this submission, noting that the argument had been fully addressed and decided in the original appeal. The Court held that the review petitions were essentially an attempt to reargue points already settled, which is impermissible within the limited scope of review jurisdiction. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as lacking substance.
Questions settled- Can a company supplanted by the Custodian of Enemy Property qualify as an aggrieved party to challenge orders in the High Court?
- Is it permissible to reargue points already decided in an appeal during review proceedings?
- Can subordinate legislation modify the scope of the term 'aggrieved party' as used in the Constitution of 1962?
- MESSRS AROKEY LTD. AND Another vs MUNIR AHMAD MUGHAL AND 3 Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a High Court order that dismissed an application to recall a previous order disposing of a constitutional petition based on a compromise. The core legal question was whether a compromise entered into by an Advocate, who held a Vakalatnama expressly authorizing such action, could be set aside due to an alleged lack of specific instructions, and whether such a challenge falls under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Advocate possessed the requisite authority under the Vakalatnama. The Court found the application failed to allege fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction, which are the exclusive grounds for relief under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court established that Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is a special remedy to be strictly construed, applicable only where fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction is pleaded. Furthermore, an Advocate with express authority to compromise in a Vakalatnama binds the client, precluding subsequent challenges based solely on the absence of specific instructions.
Questions settled- Does an Advocate holding a Vakalatnama with express power to compromise have the authority to bind the client without specific instructions for each settlement?
- What are the mandatory grounds required to challenge a judgment or order under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a party challenge a compromise order by claiming lack of specific instructions when the Advocate was duly empowered by a Vakalatnama?
- MESSRS AMSONS DAIRIES & FOOD LTD. vs SIND LABOUR COURT NO. IV AND 21982 PLC 738 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ALPHA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs Syed NASIRUDDIN1982 CLC 790 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-26Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ALLY Brother & Co. (PAK.) LTD. vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Lahore 398 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
- MESSRS AL-MAHMOOD FOUNDARY WORKSHOP AND RE-ROLLING MILLS vs ABDUL ALI1982 PLC 785 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-14Read full judgment →
- MESSRS AHMAD KARACHI HALVA MERCHANTS & AHMAD FOOD PRODUCTS vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SOUTH ZONE, KARACHI1982 SCMR 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from an order of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, which dismissed an application under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act 1922 seeking to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer a question of law. The appellant, a manufacturer and seller of sweetmeats and food products, raised a specific ground of appeal regarding the computation and allocation of income across assessment years in its memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal, but failed to urge or press the argument during the hearing. The core legal question was whether a question of law that was included in the grounds of appeal but neither argued before nor decided by the Tribunal could be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act 1922. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the phrase 'arising out of such order' does not encompass questions of law that were neither raised, argued, nor decided by the Tribunal, as grounds raised but not pressed are deemed abandoned.
Questions settled- Whether a question of law raised in the memorandum of appeal but not argued before or decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal can be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act 1922?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Section 66 of the Income-tax Act 1922 to direct the reference of a question of law that was not pressed before the Appellate Tribunal?
- MESSRS AHMAD AUTOS AND ANOTHER vs HABIB BANK LTD.1982 PLD Lahore 439 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-12Read full judgment →
- MESSRS AGRO MARKETING CORPORATION LTD., LAHORE Petitioner vs PAKISTAN AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 20 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged trial court orders in a suit for damages arising from the alleged illegal blacklisting of the petitioner. The core legal question was whether foreign documents could be proved under Section 47 of the Evidence Act 1872 by a witness acquainted with the handwriting or signatures of the authors, or if such documents strictly required direct evidence from the signatories. The High Court held that the trial court erred in restricting the application of Section 47 only to instances where the author is dead or denies execution. The Court clarified that Section 67 of the Evidence Act 1872 does not mandate that only the author can prove a document's execution. It established that Section 47 provides a recognized, alternative mode of proof for handwriting and signatures. The Court emphasized that admissibility is distinct from evidential value, and the trial court must determine, based on the facts, whether a witness is sufficiently acquainted to testify. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, allowing the petitioner to attempt proof through the proposed witness.
Questions settled- Does Section 47 of the Evidence Act 1872 require the author of a document to be dead or to deny execution before a witness can prove the handwriting?
- Does Section 67 of the Evidence Act 1872 mandate that a document can only be proved by the direct testimony of its signatory?
- Is the admissibility of a document distinct from its evidential value?
- What are the recognized modes of proving a document under the Evidence Act 1872?
- MESSRS AFZAL STORES LTD. vs COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S1982 PLC 641 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-18Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ADAMJEE INSURANCE CO."LTD. vs DENTSCHE DAMSHIFFAHRTS GESSELL1982 CLC 1220 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ADAMJEE INSURANCE Co.LTD. vs DENTSCHE DAMSHIFFAHRTS GESSELL1982 CLC 1220 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
- MESSES ASIAN MUTUAL INSURANCE Co. LTD vs MESSRS PAKISTAN INSURANCE1982 PLD Karachi 778 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →
- MESSERS SPLENDOURS INTERNATIONAL vs GOVENMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1982 SCMR 313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed its civil revision, thereby upholding an appellate order that set aside an ex-parte decree passed against the respondent. The core legal question was whether the appellate court acted within its discretion in setting aside the ex-parte decree based on the appraisal of evidence regarding the Government pleader's absence on the date of the decree. The Supreme Court observed that the District Judge had exercised discretion by preferring the Government pleader's statement, considering the extraordinary circumstances of public agitation and tension in Lahore on the date in question. The Supreme Court held that the petition essentially sought a re-appraisement of evidence to challenge a conclusion of fact, which did not constitute a legal error or a serious question of law warranting interference. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that appellate courts have discretion to set aside ex-parte orders when sufficient cause for absence is established, particularly under exceptional circumstances, and that such factual findings are generally not subject to review in the absence of legal error.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court's decision to set aside an ex-parte decree based on the appraisal of evidence regarding a party's absence constitutes a reviewable error of law?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the sufficiency of cause for a party's absence in civil proceedings?
- Does the exercise of judicial discretion by an appellate court to set aside an ex-parte decree, based on extraordinary public circumstances, warrant interference in revision?
- MESSERS SALMAN MEHMOOD COTTON GINNERS, KABIRWALA AND 2 Other vs SPECIAL JUDGE, BANKING (1) AND ANOTHER S1982 PLD Lahore 353 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an interlocutory order passed by a Special Judge (Banking), which mandated the petitioners to deposit a specific sum as a condition for granting leave to defend a recovery suit. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could interfere with such an interlocutory order when the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, expressly limits appeals to final orders and aims for the expeditious disposal of banking cases. The Court held that the writ petition was not competent. It reasoned that the constitutional jurisdiction of superior courts should not be invoked to defeat or deflect the clear legislative intent of ensuring speedy recovery of bank loans. Since the Ordinance provides a specific appellate remedy against final orders, allowing constitutional challenges to interlocutory orders would undermine the statutory scheme. Consequently, the Court affirmed that it would not interfere with interlocutory orders of a Special Court that do not dispose of the entire case, thereby upholding the legislative objective of summary proceedings.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with an interlocutory order passed by a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- Does an order granting leave to defend a suit subject to a condition of deposit constitute a final order appealable under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- Should the High Court interfere with interlocutory orders if such interference would defeat the legislative intent of ensuring the speedy disposal of cases?
- MESSERS ROBERTS COTTON ASSOCIATION LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME1982 SCMR 658 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This certificated appeal arose from a High Court judgment regarding the disallowance of a tax deduction claimed by the appellant, Messrs Roberts Cotton Association Ltd. The appellant had sold an outstanding debt owed to it by a textile mill to a third party (the Ali Group) at a discounted rate, suffering a loss of Rs. 4,45,882. The appellant sought to claim this loss as a bad debt, trading loss, or business expenditure. The core legal question was whether this voluntary loss, incurred during a corporate restructuring agreement between shareholder groups, was deductible under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the loss was not a deductible bad debt or trading loss. The Court reasoned that the transaction was a voluntary relinquishment of a claim to facilitate a change in business control, rather than a loss incidental to the appellant's business operations. The key principle established is that a loss must be involuntary and incidental to the taxpayer's business to qualify as a trading loss, and a voluntary discount on a debt to facilitate a third-party agreement does not constitute a deductible business expense.
Questions settled- Can a voluntary discount on an actionable claim sold to a third party be claimed as a bad debt under the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- Does a loss incurred to facilitate the severance of business associations qualify as an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business?
- Is a loss arising from the voluntary sale of a debt to a third party considered a trading loss incidental to the taxpayer's business?
- MERAJ SONS, CONTRACTORS vs INCOME TAX OFFICER CONTARCTORS45 TAX 2 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MERAJ AND Others vs MAJID KHAN1982 CLC 1546 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-09Read full judgment →
- MEHRBAN KHAN vs MESSRS BOOTS COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD.1982 PLC 656 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-17Read full judgment →
- MEHRAJUDDIN (REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIR) AND Others vs THE SETTLEMENT1982 SCMR 859 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a dispute over the transfer of a house in Rawalpindi by the Settlement authorities. The petitioners' father had filed a writ petition which was dismissed, leading to a Letters Patent Appeal. The Letters Patent Bench dismissed the appeal as not maintainable because the main contesting party, the transferee of the property, had not been impleaded as a respondent within the period of limitation. The Supreme Court examined the original court file and found that the memorandum of appeal had indeed been filed solely against the Settlement Commissioner, with the words 'and others' crossed out and process fees paid for only one respondent. The Supreme Court held that the failure to implead a necessary party within the limitation period creates a fundamental defect that cannot be cured by subsequent applications or the fact that the party's particulars were mentioned in the earlier writ petition. Furthermore, the High Court's refusal to exercise its discretion to implead the party years later, after a valuable right had accrued under the Limitation Act, was not perverse or illegal. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a Letters Patent Appeal maintainable when the primary contesting party and transferee of the disputed property has not been impleaded as a respondent?
- Does mentioning a necessary party's name and address in an earlier writ petition cure the failure to implead that party in the memorandum of appeal?
- Can an appellate court be compelled to exercise its discretion to implead a necessary respondent long after the expiry of the period of limitation?
- Does the inclusion of ambiguous or scored-out terms like 'and others' without disclosing names suffice to constitute proper impleadment of parties in an appeal?
- Mehr GHULAM NABI vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM Etc1982 CLC 224 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-21Read full judgment →
- MEHR DIN vs SIDDIQUE KHAN.1982 CLC 1752 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
- MEHR DIN vs S1DDIQUE KHAN1982 CLC 1752 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
- MEHR DIN vs GHULAM AKBAR AND 2 Other1982 SCMR 967 (1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was challenged on the grounds of being time-barred by 183 days. The petitioner sought condonation of delay, citing advanced age, ill-health, floods in his locality, and detention in jail custody under sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the petitioner established 'sufficient cause' to justify the condonation of such a significant delay. The Supreme Court observed that the application for a certified copy of the impugned High Court judgment was filed well after the expiry of the 60-day limitation period. Furthermore, the court noted that the alleged floods and jail detention occurred after the limitation period had already expired, and the claim of ill-health lacked any corroborating evidence. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. The petition was dismissed as time-barred, reinforcing the principle that vague or unsubstantiated claims of hardship do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing legal proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a claim of ill-health without supporting evidence constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay?
- Can events occurring after the expiration of the limitation period be used to justify the condonation of delay?
- Is a petition filed 183 days beyond the limitation period maintainable without proof of sufficient cause?
- MEHR DIN vs ALAMDAR HUSSAIN AND Another1982 PLD Lahore 327 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-11Read full judgment →
- MEHR ALI vs RAZAULLAH ETC.s1982 P Cr. L J 599 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-02Read full judgment →
- MEHMOOD AKHTAR, ETC. vs The STATE1982 SCMR 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing them post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 307, 325, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and murderous assault. The core legal question concerned whether subsequent police investigations and discrepancies regarding specific injuries attributed to the petitioners warranted interference with the High Court's discretion to deny bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that discrepancies regarding injury locations and inconsistent subsequent police investigation reports were insufficient at the leave stage to interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court laid down the principle that inconsistent subsequent police investigation reports, standing alone, do not provide sufficient grounds to displace the High Court's discretion in denying post-arrest bail in heinous offences where specific fatal blows are alleged.
Questions settled- Whether subsequent inconsistent police investigation reports provide sufficient ground for interference with the High Court's discretion in refusing bail?
- Can discrepancies in injury statements regarding the location of blows justify the grant of post-arrest bail at the leave to appeal stage?
- Whether petitioners alleged to have given fatal blows on the head of a victim are entitled to post-arrest bail?
- MEHMAND vs The STATE1982 SCMR 122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court which maintained the appellant's conviction and death sentence for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony of related witnesses, in the absence of independent corroboration and despite the appellant's plea of self-defense, was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution evidence, specifically the consistent testimony of natural eye-witnesses, established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that where eye-witnesses are natural and their testimony is consistent, a conviction can be sustained even without corroborative evidence, particularly when there is no motive for the witnesses to falsely implicate the accused. The Court further held that the failure of the defense to produce the alleged injured party for medical examination or police investigation rendered the defense version improbable. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the basis of ocular testimony from related witnesses without independent corroboration?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the recovery of a weapon necessarily invalidate a conviction based on other evidence?
- Is the omission of an accused's position on a site plan sufficient to discredit the testimony of eye-witnesses?
- MEHER GUL vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE III, QUETTA AND 4 Other1982 PLD Quetta 103 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Member, Board of Revenue, granting bail to the respondents in a murder case under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Commissioner and superior revenue authorities have the jurisdiction to grant bail under Section 16 of the Ordinance before taking formal cognizance of the offence under Section 4, or whether the ordinary courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 retain exclusive jurisdiction during the pre-cognizance/investigation stage. The High Court, by majority decision, held that the Ordinance is a special law primarily regulating trials and does not govern pre-trial investigation. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner only assumes jurisdiction upon taking formal cognizance of the offence. Prior to that stage, the ordinary courts retain exclusive jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, including the power to grant bail. The impugned bail order was declared a nullity for lack of jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the Deputy Commissioner have the power to grant bail under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968 before taking formal cognizance of the offence?
- Do ordinary courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 retain exclusive jurisdiction over bail matters during the investigation stage of a scheduled offence?
- What constitutes 'taking cognizance' by a Deputy Commissioner under Section 4 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968?
- Can the Member, Board of Revenue, exercise powers under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when dealing with matters under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968?
- MEHDI HUSSAIN SHAH AND 3 Others vs NORTH WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 168 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
- MEHDI HUSSAIN SHAH AND 3 Other vs N: W. F. P. THROUGH DEPUTY1982 PLD Peshawar 33 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
- MEHDI HASAN vs MUHAMMAD SAEED CHANDNA1982 CLC 1003 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
- MEHBOOB ELAHI vs DR. RIAZUDDIN AHMAD ETC.1982 PLD Supreme Court 165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the maintainability of a successive ejectment application under rent restriction laws. The respondent-landlord had initially filed an ejectment petition seeking the tenant’s eviction from a shop for the personal bona fide need of his son, which was ultimately rejected by the District Judge and upheld in second appeal. Three months later, the landlord filed a second eviction petition on the identical ground. The tenant raised an objection under Section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, asserting that the second application raised substantially the same issues that were finally decided earlier. The Rent Controller framed an issue on the competence of the subsequent application but ordered eviction on merits without deciding that threshold issue, an outcome later sustained by the appellate and High Court forums. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the second ejectment application was barred under Section 14 in the absence of any new element or changed circumstance.
Questions settled- Whether a second ejectment application on the ground of personal need is barred under Section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance when filed without any new element or change in circumstances?
- Is a Rent Controller obligated to specifically decide an issue framed regarding the maintainability of a successive ejectment application in light of a previous final decision?
- Under what circumstances can a landlord file successive ejectment applications on the same ground of personal requirement?
- MEHBOOB ELAHI AND Others vs ADMINISTRATOR, RESIDUAL PROPERTIES AND Other1982 SCMR 862 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition regarding the transfer of property under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether a property, claimed by the petitioners as residual property under Settlement Scheme No. IX, was legally available for transfer, or if it had already been validly transferred to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest as part of a larger industrial unit. The Supreme Court held that the property in question was not residual property, as it had been in the possession of the respondents' predecessor since 1952 and was part of the property previously transferred to him. The Court found that the Deputy Administrator lacked jurisdiction to transfer property that had already been transferred to another party, particularly when such transfer occurred without notice to the existing transferee. The key principle laid down is that property for which a Permanent Transfer Deed has been issued cannot be subjected to clandestine disposal behind the back of the transferee, and administrative authorities cannot exercise jurisdiction over property that is no longer residual.
Questions settled- Can a Deputy Administrator of Residual Property transfer property that has already been transferred to another party?
- Does the existence of a Permanent Transfer Deed preclude the subsequent disposal of property as residual property?
- Can a transfer of property be validly ordered without notice or hearing to the existing transferee?
- MEHBOOB AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 869 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-28Read full judgment →
- MEHAR DIN vs ALAMDAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER.S1982 SC M R670 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court order refusing to cancel bail granted to the respondent in a murder case. The petitioner challenged the High Court's refusal to cancel bail, citing legal arguments regarding the grant of bail to an absconder. The Supreme Court noted that the petition was barred by time regarding the original High Court order. Regarding the merits, while the Court acknowledged that the petitioner's argument concerning the law on granting bail to an absconder found support in the precedent of Rao Qadeer Khan v. The State (PLD 1981 SC 93), it declined to grant leave to appeal. The Court held that because the trial had already commenced and a significant number of witnesses had been examined before the trial was transferred to a different judge, it was not a fit case for interference at that stage. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable if it is barred by time?
- Does the commencement of a trial and the examination of witnesses influence the Supreme Court's decision to interfere with bail orders?
- Can the Supreme Court decline to grant leave to appeal even if the petitioner's legal argument finds support in precedent?
- MEHANDA vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD1982 SCMR 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld a decree in favour of the respondent in a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land. The petitioner, a vendee, challenged the suit on the grounds of limitation, asserting that he had obtained physical possession of the land prior to the mutation, and contested the respondent's superior right of pre-emption. The core legal questions were whether the suit was barred by limitation based on the date of possession and whether the respondent had sufficiently established a superior right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner's claims regarding possession were inconsistent and unsupported by revenue records, which showed a tenant-at-will in possession. Furthermore, the Court held that the respondent had adequately established his superior right of pre-emption through the Patwari's testimony and revenue records, and the petitioner failed to rebut this evidence. The judgment affirms that factual findings regarding possession and pre-emption rights, when supported by evidence and concurrent lower court findings, will not be disturbed in leave to appeal proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a vendee claim limitation in a pre-emption suit based on possession if the revenue records indicate a tenant-at-will remained in possession?
- Is the testimony of a Patwari and the Shajra sufficient to establish a superior right of pre-emption in the absence of rebuttal evidence?
- Does a contradiction between a party's pleaded case regarding the date of possession and their subsequent testimony undermine a claim of limitation?
- Md. LOCKMAN & OTHER vs COMMISSIONER OE INCOME TAX45 TAX 172 · Supreme Court of Bangladesh · 1980-06-15Read full judgment →
- MAZHAR MAHMOOD KHAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND OTHERS1982 PLC 455 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1980-04-02Read full judgment →
- MAZHAR ALI KHAN vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, HEALTH1982 PLC (C. S.) 559 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Maulvi MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs ABDUL REHMAN AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1448 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-12Read full judgment →
- Maulvi MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs ABDUL REHMAN AND OTHER1982 CLC 1448 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-12Read full judgment →
- Maulvi MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1982 SCMR 908 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the order of the High Court, which had restored an appellate order based on a compromise between the parties. The petitioner and respondent had filed rival suits claiming title to the property in dispute, which were initially decided by the civil court. During the appellate stage, the parties agreed to resolve the dispute through an oath on the Holy Quran by the respondent. Pursuant to the oath, the appeals were disposed of in favor of the respondent. Although the Additional District Judge subsequently allowed a review petition and restored the appeals for a decision on merits, the High Court set aside the review order and restored the consent-based appellate order. The core legal question concerned the propriety of interfering with a judgment and decree rendered upon the voluntary consent and undertaking of the parties. The Supreme Court held that where parties have settled the matter through a just arrangement by taking the agreed oath and the statement has been acted upon, there is no justification to release them from their undertaking or to interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction in granting leave to appeal. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a party can be permitted to resile from a compromise or settlement reached through an oath on the Holy Quran after it has been acted upon?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction with a consent-based appellate order reflecting a just arrangement between the parties?
- Maulvi ABDUL AZIZ vs Nawabzada SARFRAZ ALI KHAN1982CLC 106 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-31Read full judgment →
- MAULA BUKSH vs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. AND 21982 PLC 491 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
- MAULA BAKHSH AND Others vs CHAIRMAN FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 37 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-12-27Read full judgment →
- MAUDUD AHMAD FARUQUI vs AMIN FABRICS LTD.1982 CLC 463 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
- Mat. MARYAM MAI AND Another vs QADIR BAKHSH1982 PLD Lahore 457 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-12Read full judgment →
- MASUDUL HASSAN QURESHI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 530 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-12Read full judgment →
- MASUD H. QASMI vs Mst. SHAMS UNNISA1982 CLC 202 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-10Read full judgment →
- Masud Akhtar vs Mst. NOOR SAIN AND Other1982 PLD Supreme Court 234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil appeals against a High Court judgment that converted time-barred revision petitions into writ petitions regarding land allotment disputes between displaced persons. The core legal question was whether the High Court could validly exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution to grant relief to parties who had failed to pursue their statutory remedies within the prescribed limitation periods, and whether such conversion was legally permissible. The Supreme Court, by majority, allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and recalled the writs. The Court established that equity follows the law; a High Court cannot use its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to circumvent statutory limitation periods or to defeat legislative intent by treating time-barred statutory appeals as writ petitions. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed the principle that a party who invokes a tribunal's jurisdiction cannot subsequently challenge that same jurisdiction in a writ petition after receiving an adverse decision, as such conduct constitutes acquiescence and precludes the grant of discretionary relief.
Questions settled- Can a High Court convert a time-barred statutory revision petition into a writ petition to circumvent limitation periods?
- Is the remedy of a writ petition available to a party who has allowed their statutory remedy to become time-barred?
- Can a party challenge the jurisdiction of a tribunal in a writ petition after having voluntarily invoked that same tribunal's jurisdiction?
- Master GHULAM RASUL vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Lahore 305 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-11Read full judgment →
- MASTER ABDUL AZIZ GHAFQQR KHAN vs CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, KARACHI AND ANOTHER45 TAX 55 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MASTER ABDUL AZIZ GHAFOOR KHAN vs CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, KARACHI AND ANOTHER45 TAX 55 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MASTAN SHAH vs Syed DILAWAR HUSSAIN ETC.S1982 SCMR 707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the order of the Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of a shop in Multan Cantonment. The core legal question involves whether the petitioner, as a successor of the original transferee, could challenge a decades-old deed of association and subsequent transfer orders, and whether the Settlement Commissioner competently decided the remanded matter under the amended statutory provisions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere with concurrent factual findings of the departmental authorities, noting that the original transferee never agitated the matter in his lifetime and the belated challenge was barred by delay and finality of the transaction. The Court established that where a matter is pending before a competent authority following a statutory amendment, it can be lawfully decided under the revised provisions without vitiating prior substantial compliance.
Questions settled- Whether a successor of an original transferee can challenge a deed of association decades after it has been acted upon by settlement authorities?
- Can a Settlement Commissioner decide a pending remanded matter under amended statutory provisions?
- Whether the High Court is justified in not interfering with questions of fact concluded by departmental authorities?