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.
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs ASHALAND CORPORATION45 TAX 275 · Gauhati High Court · 1981-07-21Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TIWARI JHUMAR LAL TIWARI JHUMAR LAL vs TIWARI JHUMAR LAL TIWARI JHUMAR LAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX45 TAX 150 · Rajasthan High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (WEST), KARACHI vs FATEH TEXTILE MILLS LTD.46 TAX 118 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-24Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION), KARACHI vs JAN46 TAX 162 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EAST), KARACHI vs INTERNATIONAL45 TAX 204 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI vs NEW JUBILEE46 TAX 125 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- COLONY THAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs MESSRS ZAHID & BRORTHERS1982 CLC 1409 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-13Read full judgment →
- COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS AND 2 Others vs ASLAM1982 SCMR 519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs against a decision of the High Court. The core legal question for consideration is whether, in view of the specific prohibition contained in rule 10-A of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 against representation by an advocate in proceedings under those rules, a government servant is nevertheless entitled to be represented by counsel in departmental proceedings. The Supreme Court held that this question of law is of significant importance and likely to affect a large number of cases, thereby deserving an authoritative decision by the apex court. Consequently, the Court granted special leave to appeal, directed the appeal to be made ready on the existing record for an early hearing, and deferred the consideration regarding the suspension of the impugned High Court order.
Questions settled- Whether a party to proceedings under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 is entitled to be represented by an advocate in the face of the specific bar under rule 10-A?
- Does the High Court take a correct view in allowing a respondent to be represented through counsel during departmental proceedings despite statutory restrictions?
- COFCOT TEXTILES LTD. vs LABOUR COURT NO. VI, HYDE RABAD AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 560 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-13Read full judgment →
- CO. LTD. LAHORE vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE46 TAX 143 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-12Read full judgment →
- Civil Original No, 20 of 1959 vs NOT1982 CLC 2660 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-10Read full judgment →
- Ch: GHULAM RASOOL vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB1982 PLD Lahore 264 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-31Read full judgment →
- CHURCH OF ENGLAND ZANANA MISSION Societys vs BOARD OF REVENUE, SINDH AND 3 OTHER1982 CLC 1557 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- CHURCH OF ENGLAND ZANANA MISSION SOCIETY vs BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND1982 CLC 1557 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- CHIRAGH DIN vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND Other1982 SCMR 296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a dispute concerning the transfer of a residential property under settlement laws, where the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the house to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 as a claimant displaced person in possession, while dismissing the petitioner's claim due to a lack of valid allotment and prior possession. The core legal question involves whether the petitioner established entitlement to the property through valid documentary evidence of prior possession and allotment. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to produce competent documentary evidence to substantiate his claim of prior possession, and the fresh documents relied upon did not support his assertion. The ratio decidendi is that factual claims of prior possession and allotment in settlement proceedings must be substantiated by reliable documentary evidence, failing which concurrent findings of revenue and settlement authorities will not be disturbed. The court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal in limine.
Questions settled- Whether an allottee claiming property transfer must establish prior possession through reliable documentary evidence?
- Can fresh documents produced for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction be relied upon without proper proof?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of settlement authorities regarding the lack of proof of possession?
- CHIEF TRAFFIC OFFICER, PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs MUHAMMAD1982 PLC 740 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-28Read full judgment →
- CHIEF SECRETARY OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT vs Cot..1982 CLC 2505 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-05-12Read full judgment →
- CHIEF SECRETARY OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT vs COL.1982 CLC 2505 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-05-12Read full judgment →
- CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF vs GHULAM HAIDER (THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS)1982 CLC 1345 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-31Read full judgment →
- Chaudhry ABDUL HAQUE vs Mst. MUSTAJAB BANO AND Other1982 SCMR 1103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by special leave arose from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition challenging an order of the Settlement Commissioner. The dispute concerned two adjacent properties transferred to the appellant and first respondent under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, via Permanent Transfer Deeds (PTDs). A controversy arose regarding a space between the properties, leading to conflicting site plans approved by settlement authorities and a remand order by the Settlement Commissioner for re-demarcation after the issuance of PTDs. The core legal question was whether Settlement authorities retain jurisdiction to determine or re-demarcate property boundaries after a Permanent Transfer Deed has been issued. The Supreme Court held that upon the issuance of a PTD, the property is removed from the compensation pool, rendering the Settlement authorities functus officio to deal with or re-demarcate the property, except strictly as provided under the Permanent Transfer Rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Do Settlement authorities retain jurisdiction to determine or re-demarcate property boundaries after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- Does property leave the compensation pool upon the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can Settlement authorities become functus officio regarding property transfers except as provided under the Permanent Transfer Rules?
- CHAUDHRI WIRE ROPE INDUSTRIES LTD. vs SALES TAX OFFICER, SPECIAL45 TAX 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the decision of a Sales Tax Officer regarding the taxability of a specific item. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court of Pakistan is whether a Sales Tax Officer possesses the jurisdiction to re-open and re-examine the liability of an item to sales tax after having previously determined, in an earlier assessment order dated 21-2-1975 for the assessment year 1969-70, that the said item was exempt from such tax. The Court granted leave to appeal to consider this jurisdictional issue, specifically addressing the finality or binding nature of prior assessment orders on the same subject matter. The Court ordered the case to be prepared for hearing on the existing record within six months, allowing parties to submit additional documents, and directed that the existing interim order shall continue to operate until the final disposal of the matter.
Questions settled- Does a Sales Tax Officer have the jurisdiction to re-open the question of tax liability for an item previously held as exempted in an earlier assessment order?
- Can a tax authority revisit an assessment decision regarding the taxability of an item after a final assessment order has been issued for a specific assessment year?
- CHAIRMAN, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 4 OTHERS1982 PLC 773 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-02Read full judgment →
- Ch. SHAHABUDDIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 5 OTHERS1982 CLC 1467 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-18Read full judgment →
- Ch. SHAH ABUDDIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 5 OTHER1982 CLC 1467 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-18Read full judgment →
- Ch. SAEED AHMAD vs M. S. ABID AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 1393 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
- Ch. SAEED AHMAD vs M. S. ABID AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 1393 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Ch. SADDAR DIN vs CHAIRMAN, REVISING AUTHORITY MIRPUR DEVELOPMENT1982 CLC 1439 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
- Ch. SADDAR DIN vs CHAIRMAN REVISING AUTHORITY, M. D. A., MIRPUR AND 31982 CLC 637 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
- Ch. REHMAT ALI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FINANCE1982 PLC (C. S.) 414 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Ch. NUSRAT ULLAH vs ATHAR JAMIL1982 SCMR 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the High Court, which dismissed in limine the petitioner's application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the transfer of a civil suit pending before a Civil Judge in Lahore. The petitioner had sought transfer alleging bias and improper conduct on the part of the trial judge, which allegations were examined and rejected by both the District Judge and the High Court upon calling for a report from the trial judge. The core legal question concerns the exercise of supervisory and appellate discretion regarding the transfer of civil proceedings based on allegations of judicial bias. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the transfer application were based on the facts and circumstances of the case, were neither patently erroneous nor perverse, and did not raise any question of law of sufficient importance to warrant interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that transfer requests unsubstantiated by cogent proof and aimed at delaying proceedings will not be entertained.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts refusing to transfer a civil suit under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Can a civil suit be transferred on mere allegations of bias and family relations with the trial judge without substantiation?
- Whether an application for transfer of a suit aimed at delaying proceedings can be dismissed in limine?
- Ch. NAZIR AHMAD AND 13 OTHERS vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 136 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs MUHAMMAD RASHID1982 SCMR 636 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld an ejectment order against the petitioner. The petitioner, a tenant, was ordered by the Rent Controller under section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, to deposit monthly rent before the 15th of each succeeding month. The petitioner deposited the rent for October 1977 on the 15th of November, 1977, leading the Rent Controller to strike off his defence and order ejectment on the grounds of wilful default. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to a bona fide mistake in interpreting the deadline, arguing that such an omission did not constitute wilful default. The Supreme Court noted conflicting interpretations regarding whether depositing rent on the 15th day satisfies a requirement to deposit 'before' the 15th. Finding that the case raised questions of considerable general importance regarding the interpretation of rent deposit deadlines and the definition of wilful default, the Court granted leave to appeal and stayed the execution of the ejectment order.
Questions settled- Does the deposit of rent on the 15th day of the month satisfy a judicial order requiring rent to be deposited 'before' the 15th of the month?
- Can a tenant's failure to deposit rent by the prescribed deadline be excused as a bona fide mistake to avoid the striking off of a defence?
- What constitutes 'wilful default' in the context of rent deposit orders under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs FAZAL UR REHMAN ASLAM AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 384 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD MANZOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 702 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER1982 SCMR 307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute concerning the election of a member to a local council under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether an Election Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to invalidate an election by inquiring into the correctness of an entry in the electoral roll—specifically, the transfer of a candidate's name between electoral units—after the roll has been finalized. The Supreme Court held that the Election Tribunal acted without lawful authority in declaring the election void. The Court affirmed the principle that once a candidate's name appears on the electoral roll at the time of nomination, the entry is final and binding. Consequently, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to look behind the roll to determine if the enrollment or transfer was procedurally valid, provided the candidate meets statutory qualifications like age. The Court emphasized that the right to be enrolled as a voter is distinct from the right to be a candidate, and an election cannot be set aside based on challenges to enrollment entries that were not raised prior to the election.
Questions settled- Does an Election Tribunal have the jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of an entry in the electoral roll once it has been finalized?
- Is a candidate whose name appears on the electoral roll at the time of nomination qualified to contest an election despite allegations of improper registration?
- Can an Election Tribunal invalidate an election based on the alleged improper transfer of a candidate's name between electoral units?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD FAZAL vs AZAD GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY LOCAL1982 PLC (C. S.) 198 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1982-01-29Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD AWAIS vs MUHAMMAD ALAM1982 SC M R283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a civil suit for the recovery of Rs. 20,000 based on a promissory note and receipt executed by the respondent. The trial court decreed the suit, but the Additional District Judge set it aside, holding that the promissory note was without consideration and executed under the pressure of criminal prosecution. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's second appeal, affirming the finding that no cash consideration had passed. The core legal question was whether the respondent successfully discharged the burden of proving the absence of consideration for an admitted promissory note. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate court and the High Court—that no consideration had passed and the note was executed under pressure—were rooted in evidence and did not warrant interference. The petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed in limine, laying down the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact supported by the record regarding the absence of consideration in negotiable instruments.
Questions settled- Whether interference by the Supreme Court is justified when findings of the High Court regarding the absence of consideration in a promissory note are rooted in evidence?
- Does the burden of proving that no consideration passed rest heavily on the maker of a promissory note when execution is admitted?
- Can a promissory note executed under the pressure of criminal prosecution be held to be without valid consideration?
- Ch. MOHAMMAD LATIF vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF STATE THE OF JAMMU &1982 PLC (C. S.) 374 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1982-03-17Read full judgment →
- Ch. MOHAMMAD IKRAMUL HAQ vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND 3 Other1982 PLD Lahore 371 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
- Ch. KHALID MAHMOOD SHAHEEN, ADVOCATE vs PUNJAB BAR COUNCIL AND 21982 CLC 1115 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-12Read full judgment →
- Ch. JALAL vs BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND AND 3 OTHERS1982 CLC 2020 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-09Read full judgment →
- Ch. HABIB ULLAH vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1982 PLC (C. S.) 217 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1977-08-10Read full judgment →
- Ch. GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs Mian HABIB UR RAHMAN AND Other1982 PLD Lahore 368 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
- Ch. BARKAT ALI AND Another vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, FEROZEWALA1982 PLD Lahore 83 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three writ petitions challenging no-confidence motions against Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of local councils. The core legal questions were whether a requisition for a meeting constitutes "moving" a no-confidence motion, and whether Section 31 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, requires that a first no-confidence motion be moved immediately after the initial six-month period or be deemed rejected. The Court held that a requisition for a meeting is distinct from moving a motion, and that the "deemed rejected" provision in Section 31(3) applies only to subsequent motions, not the first. Consequently, the first motion may be moved at any time after the initial six-month period. The Court further established the principle that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction should not be exercised to protect a representative office-holder who has lost the confidence of the electorate, as doing so would be contrary to public policy and the intent of the statute. The petitions were dismissed, affirming the validity of the motions and the democratic nature of the representative offices.
Questions settled- Does a requisition for a meeting to consider a no-confidence motion constitute the 'moving' of such a motion?
- Does the 'deemed rejected' provision in Section 31(3) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, apply to the first motion of no-confidence?
- Can a court exercise discretionary constitutional jurisdiction to protect a representative office-holder who has lost the confidence of the electorate?
- Is there a requirement that a first no-confidence motion must be moved immediately after the initial six-month period of office?
- Ch. ALLAH DITTA vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN ETC.1982 CLC 1656 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-15Read full judgment →
- Ch. ALLAH DITTA vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Etc1982 CLC 1656 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-15Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUR REHMAN, ADVOCATE AND 4 Others vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY1982 CLC 1415 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-30Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL QAYYUM vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB1982 PLC (C. S.) 443 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-01-01Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL MAJID vs MUHAMMAD HANIF AND Other1982 SCMR 473 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an election dispute where the petitioner challenged the election of the first respondent. The Election Tribunal, after a recount, declared the petitioner the winner, rejecting the respondent's preliminary objection regarding the non-joinder of a candidate. The High Court remanded the case, directing the Tribunal to reconsider the maintainability of the petition under Rule 66 of the Sind Local Council (Election) Rules, 1979, and to decide all issues on the merits. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Election Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the maintainability of the petition based on non-compliance with election rules, as Rule 68 vests this authority exclusively in the Election Authority prior to referral. However, the Court upheld the remand order regarding the merits. It established that an Election Tribunal must decide all issues, including those concerning alleged corrupt or illegal practices, simultaneously rather than piecemeal, as findings on such practices directly impact the validity of the votes cast and the final election result. The case was remanded for a comprehensive decision on all outstanding issues.
Questions settled- Does an Election Tribunal have the jurisdiction to dismiss an election petition for non-compliance with election rules under the Sind Local Council (Election) Rules, 1979?
- Is it mandatory for an Election Tribunal to decide all issues, including those on merits, simultaneously rather than deciding preliminary issues in isolation?
- Which authority is responsible for determining the initial maintainability of an election petition under the Sind Local Council (Election) Rules, 1979?
- Ch. ABDUL GHANI GRUMMAN vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1982 CLC 2170 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-30Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL GHANI GHUMMAN vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1982 CLC 2170 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-30Read full judgment →
- CAPT. RAHAT MAJEED vs Mst. KUBRA BAI (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS)1982 CLC 1171 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
- BURROUGHS. WELCOME (PAKISTAN) EMPLOYEES' UNION vs Mesas WELCOME1982 PLC 868 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
- BURNEY's INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL Co. LTD. vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1982 CLC 2468 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
- BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTING COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD.1982 CLC 2528 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-20Read full judgment →
- BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTING COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD.1982 CLC 2528 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-20Read full judgment →
- BURIAL vs THE STATE1982 PLD Karachi 152 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-26Read full judgment →
- BUNDOO KHAN vs MASTER KHAIR DIN AND 4 OTHER1982 CLC 978 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
- BUNDOO KHAN vs MASTER KHA1R DIN AND 4 OTHERS1982 CLC 978 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
- BRIG. HIS HIGHNESS NAWAB MUHAMMAD ABBAS KHAN ABBASI vs DEPUTY LAND COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR AND Other1982 SCMR 991 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges orders regarding the resumption and distribution of land belonging to the appellant, the successor to the Ameer of Bahawalpur, passed under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 (M.L.R. 64) and the Acceding State (Property) Order, 1961. The core legal questions involved whether the property in question constituted impartible Ameerate property passing by the rule of primogeniture to the exclusion of other heirs, and the legality of the resumption and distribution orders. The Supreme Court held that the claim of the property being exclusively attached to the Ameerate was without force, but found that the distribution order passed by the Central Government suffered from infirmities requiring a fresh decision. Consequently, the impugned orders of the land authorities were set aside with directions to proceed afresh once the Central Government finalizes the distribution of properties among the heirs. The key principle laid down is that former rulers and their heirs are subject to general laws such as Martial Law Regulation No. 64, and land resumption cannot precede the exact determination of holdings.
Questions settled- Whether the property of the late Ameer of Bahawalpur is Ameerate property governed by the rule of primogeniture?
- Are the citizens belonging to former ruling families subject to the provisions of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1959?
- Can land authorities proceed with the resumption of excess land before the exact property holdings of individual heirs are finally determined?
- BOMBAY SILK HOUSE AND ANOTHER vs Syed TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN1982 CLC 691 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-23Read full judgment →
- BILAL HUSSAIN vs The STATE1982 SCMR 1141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two criminal petitions filed by the petitioner, Bilal Hussain, challenging his convictions for attempted murder and illegal possession of a weapon. The petitioner was initially convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for attempted murder and under the Arms Ordinance for possession of a knife, with sentences of three years and one year of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The High Court dismissed his appeals against both convictions. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that his actions constituted an offence under Section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than Section 307. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings, noting that the nature of the weapon and the location of the injury (the abdomen) justified the conviction under Section 307. Furthermore, the Court held that even if the offence were reclassified under Section 326, the sentence imposed was well within the permissible limits for that section, rendering the distinction practically immaterial to the petitioner's sentence. The petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the use of a knife to inflict an abdominal injury justify a conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does a reclassification of an offence from Section 307 to Section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 necessitate a reduction in sentence if the original sentence is within the statutory limits of the latter?
- BHONDU vs SAMI KHAN1982 CLC 316 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-21Read full judgment →
- BHIMJI AND 8 Other vs ABDUL SATTAR1982 PLD Karachi 115 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-27Read full judgment →
- BHARMAL Alias BAHADUR KHAN AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN AND Other1982 SCMR 352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' application for setting aside the abatement of their writ petition. The sole contesting respondent had died on 7-8-1970, but the petitioners filed an application to bring legal representatives on record on 8-4-1971, falsely stating the date of death as 2-2-1971 to circumvent limitation issues. The High Court subsequently rejected the petitioners' applications for setting aside abatement and condonation of delay. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioners deliberately made a false statement regarding the date of death and by their conduct disentitled themselves to equitable relief. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the refusal of the High Court, ruled that no justification for interference was made out, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition abates upon the death of the sole contesting respondent when legal representatives are not brought on record within time?
- Can a party that makes a false statement regarding the date of death to circumvent limitation be granted condonation of delay and setting aside of abatement?
- Does the High Court properly exercise its discretion in refusing to set aside abatement when the applicant is guilty of misleading the court?
- BHARAT DEVELOPMENT (P.) LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OE INCOME TAX46 TAX 43 · Delhi High Court · 1979-12-18Read full judgment →
- BHARAMAL Alias BAHADUR KHAN AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND OTHER1982 CLC 2183 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-02Read full judgment →
- BHARAMAL alias BABA DUR KHAN AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2183 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-02Read full judgment →
- BEGUM SHAMS-UN-NISA vs SAID AKBAR ABBASI AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Supreme Court 413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside an order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and restoring an order of the Settlement Commissioner. The dispute concerns the transfer of a shop originally allotted to a non-claimant displaced person who subsequently executed an Agreement of Association enabling the appellant-claimant to pay the transfer price from her compensation book. After the issuance of a Provisional Transfer Order and Permanent Transfer Deed, the respondent acknowledged the appellant as his landlady by paying rent and filing an application for the fixation of fair rent. Years later, the respondent applied to the Settlement Commissioner for cancellation of the Agreement of Association, alleging fraud and lack of consideration, which the Settlement Commissioner accepted. The Chief Settlement Commissioner declared that order a nullity under powers of general superintendence and control, which the High Court subsequently set aside via writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the allegations of fraud were baseless and that the respondent had long acquiesced in the transfer. Emphasizing that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised in aid of injustice, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Whether a party who has acknowledged a transferee as a landlord and sought fair rent can subsequently challenge the underlying Agreement of Association on grounds of fraud?
- Can the High Court exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction in a manner that restores an unjust order?
- Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner can direct subordinate authorities to ignore an order passed without jurisdiction?
- Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed bar a party from belatedly alleging fraud without timely challenge?
- BEGUM NUSRAT BHUTTO vs INCOME TAX OFFICER45 TAX 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against assessment orders passed by the Income Tax Officer against the late Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1977-78. The assessment orders were issued and served upon the petitioner, one of the deceased's widows, after his death. The core legal questions involve the proper construction of Section 24-B of the Income Tax Act, specifically whether demand notices issued to a deceased person are valid, and whether a legal heir can be held liable for the entire tax liability of the deceased without a prior hearing. The Court held that a notice issued to a dead person is a nullity and that the respondent could not recover the entire tax liability from the petitioner, who was only entitled to a fractional share of the estate. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before such demands could be enforced. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and stayed the recovery of the tax amount pending the final hearing of the appeals.
Questions settled- Is a tax demand notice issued in the name of a deceased person a legal nullity?
- Can a legal heir be held liable for the entire tax liability of a deceased person without a prior hearing?
- Does Section 24-B(3) of the Income Tax Act 1922 exclude the right of a legal heir to be heard before tax recovery?
- Can a tax authority recover the full tax liability of a deceased person from a single heir whose inheritance share is limited?
- BEGUM ALMAS DAULTANA vs MANZOOR AHMAD KHAN AND Other1982 SCMR 1196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order of the Settlement Commissioner and remanded the case for a fresh decision by a competent officer. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's order of remand was justified and whether the observations made by the High Court in its judgment would unfairly prejudice the proceedings upon remand. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to remand the matter for a fresh determination, finding the order legally sound and unobjectionable. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the strong observations made by the High Court in its judgment were merely tentative in nature. The Court laid down the principle that when a case is remanded for a fresh decision, the competent officer must decide the matter strictly on its merits, based on the material adduced and contentions advanced, without being influenced by any tentative observations made by the High Court in its remand order.
Questions settled- Is an order of remand for a fresh decision by a competent officer justified when the original order is found to be without lawful authority?
- Should observations made by a High Court in a remand order be treated as binding findings or tentative observations?
- Can a competent officer decide a case on remand uninfluenced by tentative observations made by the High Court?
- Before Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, Mst. ASIFA ZAFAR vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE1982 CLC 2344 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
- BAZ KHAN vs MESSRS ALLIED TABKEY GROUP Lm.1982 PLC 936 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-04-05Read full judgment →
- BATA SHOE COMPANY vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1884 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
- BATA SHOE COMPANY vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS AND OTHER1982 CLC 1884 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
- BATA EMPLOYEES FEDERATION (Ream) vs BATA SHOE COMPANY (PAKISTAN)1982 PLC 359 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1979-09-07Read full judgment →
- BASSA vs GHULAM ANWAR1982 CLC 957 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-13Read full judgment →
- BASHIRA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
- BASHIRA BIBI vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
- BASHIR SHAH vs TAE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 311 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-14Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs MEMBER (COLONIES) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND Another1982 SCMR 146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue. The petitioner had been allotted land under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme, while the respondent was a pre-existing lessee of the same land. Following a series of disputes regarding possession and subsequent litigation, the Member, Board of Revenue, set aside the petitioner's allotment, a decision affirmed by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Member, Board of Revenue erred in concluding that the purpose of the petitioner's allotment had not been fulfilled. The Supreme Court held that this issue constituted a question of fact, which could not be re-examined in appeal. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the lower authorities' decisions, emphasizing that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be exercised to perpetuate injustice, particularly where the respondent had long-standing possession and qualified for the 15 Years Lease Scheme.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court re-examine a finding of fact regarding the fulfillment of the purpose of a land allotment in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Is the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court discretionary in nature?
- Should writ jurisdiction be exercised in aid of injustice?
- BASHIR AHMED vs HEALTH DIVISION AND 2 OTHERS , .1982 PLC (C. S.) 615 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-07-11Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED AND Others vs The STATE1982 SCMR 1177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed their application for the suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners had been convicted under Sections 366 and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving sentences exceeding four years of rigorous imprisonment. While their appeal against conviction was admitted for hearing by the High Court, their request for bail pending appeal was denied. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the impugned order and found no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court judge in refusing to suspend the sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to maintain the incarceration of the petitioners during the pendency of their appeal.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in refusing to suspend a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a convicted person entitled to suspension of sentence as a matter of right pending an appeal?
- BASHIR AHMAD ZIA vs THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1982 SCMR 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which declared the petitioner, an Assistant Manager at the Punjab Agricultural Development and Supplies Corporation, not to be a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The petitioner challenged his termination, arguing that after completing his three-month probation, he became a regular employee entitled to protection under Standing Order 12(5). The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s duties, which included supervision of sale points, liaison with government departments, and educating farmers, were clerical or manual in nature, thereby qualifying him as a workman. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding, noting that the petitioner's duties involved managerial and supervisory functions rather than clerical or manual tasks. The Court held that an employee exercising delegated authority and performing supervisory duties, even if directed by a District Manager, does not qualify as a workman. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the Labour Courts lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner's grievance.
Questions settled- Does an Assistant Manager performing supervisory and liaison duties qualify as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Can an employee be considered a workman if their duties are primarily managerial and supervisory rather than clerical or manual?
- Does the exercise of delegated authority by an employee exclude them from the definition of a workman?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 21 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-05Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs Mst. ABIDA AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1295 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs Mst. ABIDA AND OTHER1982 CLC 1295 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs I. G. OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 151 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-12-09Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SHEIKHUPURA1982 PLD Lahore 166 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-04Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 325 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-11-09Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs ABDUL HAMID AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Lahore 449 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD FAROOQI vs TEHSILDAR, MUZAFFAR ABAD AND ANOTHER46 TAX 27 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-03-12Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD ETC. vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER1982 SCMR 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that refused to restore a constitutional petition previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the restoration of a petition where the petitioners failed to appear, despite their claim that a clerical error in the cause list regarding a counsel's name caused the absence. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners had engaged multiple counsel, and while one name was misspelled in the cause list, the other counsel were correctly listed. Furthermore, the High Court noted a history of non-appearance by the petitioners on previous dates. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in considering the overall conduct of the petitioners in diligently pursuing the case. The principle laid down is that in exercising discretionary power to restore a petition dismissed for default, the court is entitled to evaluate the petitioner's prior conduct and diligence in pursuing the litigation, and if such conduct is found deficient, the court may properly decline to exercise discretion in their favor.
Questions settled- Can a court refuse to restore a constitutional petition dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner's conduct shows a lack of diligence?
- Does a clerical error in a cause list regarding a counsel's name automatically entitle a party to the restoration of a dismissed petition?
- Is the exercise of discretion by a High Court in refusing to restore a petition subject to interference if it is based on the petitioner's overall conduct?
- BASHIR AHMAD ETC. vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD ETC.S1982 SCMR 663 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD ETC. vs Mst. SUGHRA ETC1982 P Cr. L J 29 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1122 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD AND 3 Other vs Mst. HAKEEMA AND 6 Other1982 PLD Karachi 172 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a decree for partition and declaration of title regarding agricultural land. The core legal questions concerned whether the disputed properties were joint family assets, the validity of a sale deed executed by the respondent, and whether the suit was time-barred. The court held that the properties were jointly held and managed by the appellants, who stood in a fiduciary relationship with the respondent. Consequently, acquisitions made during this management were presumed to be for the benefit of the joint family. The court further ruled that the sale deed was void ab initio for failing to obtain the mandatory sanction from the Collector required under the Sind Rural Credit and Land Transfer Act 1947. Crucially, the court established that a transaction void under a statute at the time of its execution is not automatically validated by the subsequent repeal of that statute, absent a clear legislative intent to the contrary. The suit was found to be within the limitation period under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908, as the cause of action arose upon the fraudulent mutation of records.
Questions settled- Does the repeal of a statute automatically validate a transaction that was void under that statute at the time of its execution?
- Can a managing member of a joint family acquire property in their own name without it being considered joint family property?
- Is a sale deed executed without the mandatory sanction of the Collector under the Sind Rural Credit and Land Transfer Act 1947 void?
- Does the limitation period for a suit challenging a void sale deed and subsequent mutation of records fall under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- BASHIR AHMAD Alias BASHIRA ETC. vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1163 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-09Read full judgment →
- BANHO vs THE STATE1982 PLD Karachi 881 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-28Read full judgment →
- BANGLADESH SHIPPING CORPORATION vs S. S. "NEDON", ETC.1982 CLC 142 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-10Read full judgment →