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.
- A. M. QURESHI vs UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC AND Another1982 SCMR 1142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an old pending appeal involving an important question of law regarding the jurisdiction of Pakistani courts over a foreign government. When the case was called for hearing after due consultation with the advocates-on-record, counsel for the respondents failed to appear, and a representative of the respondent government requested an adjournment to engage new counsel and seek instructions, citing the previous advocate's appointment as Additional Advocate-General. The appellant strongly opposed the adjournment due to the long pendency of the appeal and expenses incurred. The Court, balancing the necessity of proper representation for an important jurisdictional question involving a foreign state against the delay, granted a reasonable adjournment subject to the payment of costs by the respondents, while making it clear that no further adjournments would be granted.
Questions settled- Whether an adjournment should be granted when a party's Advocate-on-Record fails to arrange representation due to a change in office?
- Can costs be awarded as a condition for granting an adjournment to a foreign government?
- Under what circumstances may a matter proceed ex parte against a foreign state respondent?
- A. H. MIRZA vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND 6 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 599 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- A. GHANI DANWALA vs AHMAD IBRAHIM AMEEN1982 PLD Karachi 935 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
- A. D. PERVEZ vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION1982 PLC (C. S.) 227 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- 1975-76 And 1976-77), . Department vs Assessee46 TAX 10 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-26Read full judgment →
- (COLONY) THAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD., MIANWALI vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, ISLAMABAD AND 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 364 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-12Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs The STATE1981 SCMR 727 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the refusal of the Lahore High Court to grant post-conviction bail to the petitioners, who were convicted under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal question is whether the petitioners were entitled to bail as of right under subsection (1-A) of section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground that their appeal had not been heard within two years of its filing. The Supreme Court held that while bail is generally to be allowed under the statutory provision if the appeal is not disposed of within two years, it can still be refused for recorded reasons, and interference was unwarranted since the High Court had recorded observations on the merits and the appeal was imminent for disposal during the upcoming circuit. The key principle laid down is that the statutory delay in hearing an appeal under section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not mandate automatic bail if the High Court records reasons for refusal and the appeal is near disposal.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to bail as of right under section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if an appeal is not disposed of within two years?
- Can the High Court refuse bail under section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after recording reasons?
- ZULFIQAR ALI vs PREMIER TOBACCO INDUSTRIES LTD., RAWALPINDI /1981 PLC 293 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-24Read full judgment →
- ZUBEDA AHMAD vs ABDUS SATTAR1981 CLC 1018 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-10Read full judgment →
- ZINDA MAHMOOD BAJWA vs DR. FARHAT HASAN AND Other1981S C M R1174. · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against a tenant of a bungalow in Lahore Cantonment. The Rent Controller ordered the petitioner's eviction due to default in complying with an order under Section 17(8) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, which required the deposit of rent arrears. The petitioner contested the arrears, claiming prior payment and producing receipts, the genuineness of which the landlord denied. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rejected the petitioner's evidence, including the testimony of a handwriting expert. The Lahore High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the concurrent factual findings of the lower tribunals. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed this decision, holding that the assessment of evidence regarding the genuineness of rent receipts constitutes a question of fact. The Court reiterated that constitutional jurisdiction does not extend to re-evaluating factual findings made by lower tribunals, even if those findings might be considered erroneous. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, though the tenant was granted three months to vacate voluntarily.
Questions settled- Is the assessment of evidence regarding the genuineness of rent receipts a question of fact or law?
- Can a High Court interfere with the factual findings of lower tribunals in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does an erroneous factual finding by a lower tribunal warrant interference by the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction?
- ZIA ULLAH SHAH vs Syed RIAZ AHMAD1981 SCMR 538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court order dismissing the petitioner's second appeal against an ejectment order passed under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The Rent Controller had tentatively determined the rent at Rs. 400 per month and directed the petitioner to deposit past and future rent accordingly. The petitioner instead deposited rent at Rs. 300 per month, asserting it was the correct rate, which led the Rent Controller to strike off his defence for non-compliance. The petitioner contended that because the tentative order is subject to final determination under Section 13(6), ejectment cannot be ordered without such final determination. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that tentative rent must be complied with subject to final adjustment on the merits. If a tenant fails to comply with the tentative deposit order, their defence is liable to be struck off, precluding them from contesting the proceedings further. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-compliance with a tentative rent order before final determination of the rent?
- Does the requirement of final rent determination under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 prevent ejectment for failing to deposit tentative rent?
- Is a tenant permitted to unilaterally deposit rent at a lower rate than that tentatively determined by the Rent Controller?
- ZIA FARHAT AWAN ETC. vs AURANGZEB ETC.1981 SCMR 824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit instituted by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants against a sale of land, claiming a superior right of pre-emption on the grounds of co-sharership, contiguity, and being a participator in amenities and appendages, specifically through a shared source of irrigation. The trial court decreed the suit, and the District Judge dismissed the vendees' appeal. However, a learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the vendees' revision petition and dismissed the suit, holding that drawing water from separate water channels (Lakhtis) originating from a common canal does not make the parties participators in appendages or give rise to a superior right of pre-emption. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was the scope and meaning of clause 'secondly' of section 12 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, regarding whether drawing water from the same general watercourse confers the status of a participator in amenities and appendages (Shafi-i-Khalit). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that receiving water from a common water channel or distinct branches (Lakhtis) bifurcating at a distance is quite distinct from a right to discharge water over the suit land, and does not confer a superior right of pre-emption. The Court reaffirmed that drawing water from a common government source or canal does not constitute being a co-sharer in appendages.
Questions settled- Does drawing water from a common water channel or a separate branch channel (Lakhti) give a plaintiff a superior right of pre-emption as a participator in amenities and appendages under section 12 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950?
- What is the scope and meaning of the second clause of section 12 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, regarding the right of irrigation and discharge of water?
- Can owners of land who draw water from a common watercourse claim the right of pre-emption as Shafi-i-Khalit?
- ZIA AHMAD BOKHAR I vs I.-G. OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1981 PLC (C. S.) 653 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-04-18Read full judgment →
- ZARAB KHAN vs THE STATE1981 PLD F SC 293 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-06-02Read full judgment →
- ZAMAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs ANWAR & COMPANY KARACHI1981 CLC 6 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-19Read full judgment →
- ZAKAUDDIN Alias BILLA vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1981 PLD Lahore 438 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-08Read full judgment →
- ZAKARIA vs THE STATE1981 PLC 870 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-22Read full judgment →
- ZAKA UD DIN vs THE SERVICE TRIBUNAL AND 2 Other1981 SCMR 699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal by the Service Tribunal, upholding his dismissal from service for the misappropriation of Government money while serving as a Sub-Post Master. The core legal questions involve the condonation of a significant delay of 299 days in filing the petition for leave to appeal and whether a factual contention not raised before the Service Tribunal can be agitated before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petition was hopelessly barred by time as the explanation for the delay was vague and unsupported by an affidavit, and further noted that the contention regarding the inquiry proceedings was never raised before the Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that a petition for leave to appeal barred by a substantial delay without a satisfactory and supported explanation is liable to be dismissed, and new factual objections not raised before the lower forum cannot be permitted to be urged for the first time.
Questions settled- Whether a petition for leave to appeal barred by a long delay can be entertained without a proper and supported application for condonation of delay?
- Can an objection regarding departmental inquiry proceedings, not raised before the Service Tribunal, be agitated for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- ZAIN PACKAGING INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI vs ABDUL RASHID AND 2 OTHERS1981 PLC 800 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged orders passed by labor authorities regarding the calculation of gratuity for a resigned employee. The core legal question was whether allowances—specifically cost of living, house rent, conveyance, and tea allowances—constitute 'wages' for the purpose of calculating gratuity under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The petitioners argued that gratuity should be based only on basic pay and that certain allowances were excluded. The Court held that the definition of 'wages' in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, is applicable for calculating gratuity in the absence of a specific definition in the Standing Orders Ordinance. The Court affirmed that 'wages' encompasses all remuneration capable of being expressed in monetary terms, including the disputed allowances, as they were not expressly excluded by the relevant statutory definitions. The principle laid down is that where the Standing Orders Ordinance does not define 'wages,' the definition provided in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, governs the calculation of gratuity, and such 'wages' include all cash remuneration agreed upon between the employer and employee.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'wages' in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, apply to the calculation of gratuity under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Are house rent, conveyance, and tea allowances included in the definition of 'wages' for the purpose of calculating gratuity?
- Can an employee claim gratuity based on the last drawn wages including cost of living allowance?
- ZAHURUL HASAN vs Mst. RUQQIA BEGUM AND 4 Other1981 PLD Supreme Court 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for Special Leave to Appeal arose from an ejectment order passed against the petitioner on grounds of personal need and reconstruction. The Rent Controller's order was upheld by the District Judge, and the petitioner's subsequent civil revision petition was dismissed by the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the competency of a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in rent matters, following the substitution of Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 by the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance 1979. The Court held that the newly substituted Section 15(7) explicitly bars calling any order of the Controller into question in any court of law, including the High Court, by suit, appeal, or 'otherwise'. The term 'otherwise' is wide enough to exclude revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the legislative competence of the Governor of Punjab to amend the Ordinance, as rent control falls within the residuary legislative domain of the Province under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable against an appellate order of a District Judge passed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 after its amendment by Ordinance IX of 1979?
- Does the term 'otherwise' in Section 15(7) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 exclude the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Whether the Governor of Punjab was constitutionally competent to amend the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 via the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance 1979?
- ZAHOOR DIN vs Mirza AYUB BAIG .1981 SCMR 1081 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the leave of the Court arose from a landlord's ejectment application against his tenant on grounds of default in rent, personal requirement, and damage to the property. The Rent Controller allowed the application, but the Additional District Judge and subsequently the High Court in second appeal dismissed it, holding inter alia that the landlord failed to mention the requirement for his son in the initial application and did not examine the son as a witness. The core legal question centered on whether the omission to explicitly plead a child's requirement or fail to produce the child as a witness defeats a bona fide personal requirement claim under rent restriction laws. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the Rent Controller's order, holding that a landlord's personal requirement under the law extends to the occupation of his children, and such a need can be established through evidence even if not explicitly pleaded in the initial application, and that the failure to examine the concerned son as a witness is not fatal to the claim.
Questions settled- Whether the omission in an ejectment application to specifically state that a premises is required for the occupation of a landlord's child is fatal to the claim?
- Is it mandatory under the law for a landlord to examine as a witness the son for whose marriage and accommodation an ejectment is sought?
- Does the failure to use the express terms 'bona fide' or 'good faith' in an ejectment application vitiate the landlord's claim for personal requirement?
- ZAHOOR AND 3 OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1981 CLC 1569 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ZAHOOR AHMED vs TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS, .1981 PLC 713 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-29Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR AHMAD vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION/1981 PLC 292 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-09-09Read full judgment →
- ZAHIR AHMED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD AND 12 OTHERS1981 CLC 876 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-10Read full judgment →
- ZAHID SHEHZAD AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 844 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-26Read full judgment →
- ZAHID AZIZ KHAN vs DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE, PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS, .1981 PLC (C. S.) 583 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR MAHMOOD PAUL vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 66 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant challenged the criminal proceedings pending against him before the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi, under section 156(1), clause 89 of the Customs Act, involving the alleged recovery of foreign car stereos. The core legal question was whether the goods seized constituted smuggled goods under the law when they were not covered by the relevant notification issued under section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969. The Court held, following precedent, that an offence of smuggling or possession of smuggled goods requires that the goods be expressly mentioned in section 2(s) or notified thereunder by the Government. Since the State conceded that the goods did not fall within the purview of the governing notification, the Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the pending proceedings against the applicant, while clarifying that this order does not prejudice other proceedings available to the authorities under the Customs Act.
Questions settled- Can a person be prosecuted for possession of smuggled goods if the goods in question are not covered by a notification issued under section 2(s) of the Customs Act 1969?
- Whether proceedings under the Customs Act 1969 can be quashed when the State concedes that the recovered goods do not fall within the purview of the relevant notification?
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 850 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-08-18Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ALI SHAH vs MESSRS BENGAL VEGETABLE INDUSTRIES LTD. , .1981 PLC 776 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-08-16Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ALI KHAN AND 6 Other vs Haji MUHAMMAD ZAMAN/1981 PLD Peshawar 151 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-06-16Read full judgment →
- Z. A. QURESHI AND 2 OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 651 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal ABDUL RAZAK vs DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL1981 PLC 737 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
- YUTAKA MAEDA vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 340 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-29Read full judgment →
- YOUSUF ALI KHOJA vs MRS. ANWARI BEGUM1981 CLC 1482 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-06Read full judgment →
- YOUSIF vs Tim STATE1981 PLD Karachi 672 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- YOUSAF AND 2 Others vs Tile STATE1981 SCMR 958 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, convicted by a Magistrate for offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court that declined to suspend their sentences pending the disposal of their appeal. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal to suspend sentences while the appeal remained pending. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had properly exercised its discretion in refusing to suspend the sentences, noting that it would not delve into the merits of the evidence while the appeal was still pending before the High Court. Furthermore, the Court observed that the statutory provision regarding mandatory bail for sentences not exceeding three years, where the appeal has not been decided within six months, was not yet applicable in the instant case given the timeline of the conviction. Consequently, the petition for special leave was dismissed, affirming that the appellate court's discretion in suspending sentences should not be lightly interfered with by the Supreme Court at an interlocutory stage.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal to suspend a sentence pending appeal?
- Under what circumstances does Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandate the release of a convicted person on bail?
- Should the Supreme Court evaluate the merits of evidence in a trial while an appeal is still pending in the High Court?
- YOUSAF ALI KHOJA vs Mst. ANWARI BEGUM1981 CLC 1531 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-06Read full judgment →
- YOUNUS KHAN vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 378 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- YAQUB ALI vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 542 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-06Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB KHAN vs RASOOL KHAN AND Other1981 SCMR 155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit regarding joint possession of land and a garden, where the plaintiffs were permitted to amend the plaint and subsequently required to address a court-fee deficiency. Upon remand by the High Court of Peshawar to consider court-fee deficiency and limitation on the memorandum of appeal, the Additional District Judge exercised judicial discretion under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, permitting the plaintiffs to make up the deficiency within a specified time. The defendants challenged this order via a Revision Petition, contending that the appeal was time-barred due to late payment of the court-fee. The High Court dismissed the Revision Petition, prompting the current petition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that Order VII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not apply to appeals and that Section 149 empowers courts with discretion to permit payment of court-fee deficiencies at any stage. Once paid, the court-fee operates retrospectively as if paid in the first instance, and the Supreme Court will not interfere with discretionary rulings absent extraordinary circumstances. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does Order VII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to an appeal claimed to be time-barred due to deficient court-fees?
- Can a court under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permit a party to make up a deficiency in court-fees after the period of limitation for filing an appeal has expired?
- What is the legal effect under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a party pays a deficient court-fee after receiving permission from the court?
- YAMIN vs THE .STATE1981 PLD Karachi 406 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-27Read full judgment →
- YAKOOB vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. LJ 248 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-14Read full judgment →
- XEN, WESTERN BAR DIVISION, MULTAN, ETC. vs ELAHI BAKHSH1981 SCMR 1000 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal arising from a service dispute involving a Patwari, Elahi Bakhsh, who was dismissed from service in 1968. The employee challenged his dismissal in a civil suit, which resulted in a declaration that the dismissal was inoperative due to a defective inquiry, though the trial court permitted the department to hold a fresh inquiry. Subsequent appellate proceedings in the District Court and the High Court modified the scope of this permission. The employee challenged the permission for a fresh inquiry, arguing it constituted double jeopardy. Conversely, the Department argued that the civil court lacked jurisdiction due to the abatement of proceedings under the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974. The Supreme Court held that a fresh inquiry is permissible when the initial inquiry was found to be legally defective, as this does not constitute double jeopardy. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that civil proceedings initiated before the prescribed date under the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974, do not abate. Both petitions were dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision.
Questions settled- Does a fresh departmental inquiry into misconduct constitute double jeopardy when the initial inquiry was set aside for legal defects?
- Do pending civil proceedings regarding service matters abate under Section 8 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974, if they were initiated before the prescribed date?
- Can a civil court grant a declaration of illegal dismissal while simultaneously permitting the employer to conduct a fresh inquiry?
- WORKMEN vs MESSRS BROOKE BOND (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI, .1981 PLC 733 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-10-12Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION vs MESSRS UNITED WOOLLEN MILLS, KARACHI1981 PLC 716 · Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-26Read full judgment →
- WAZIR MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs ABDUL AZIZ AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 814 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
- WAZIR KHAN AND 5 Others vs BUDH SINGH AND 5 Other1981S C M R 11 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of certain agricultural land allotments by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner. The petitioners, representing the deceased original claimants, argued that the cancellation was improper because their entitlements were not determined in accordance with the original revenue records (Fard Haqiat) received from India. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the entries in the relevant columns of the Fard Haqiat were correctly interpreted and applied in determining the petitioners' land entitlements. Upon reviewing the papers, the Supreme Court found merit in the petitioners' contention regarding the potential misinterpretation of these revenue records. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the true import of the entries. Pending the final disposal of the appeal, the Court issued an interim order restraining both the petitioners and the respondents from alienating or disposing of the disputed land, holding that such a measure was necessary in the interest of justice to preserve the status quo.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to grant leave to appeal when there is a potential misinterpretation of revenue records received from India regarding land entitlements?
- Can the Supreme Court issue an interim order restraining both parties from alienating disputed land pending the final disposal of an appeal?
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Syed AFTAB ALI AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 579 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- WARYAM AND OTHERS vs Mst. SARDAR BEGUM AND OTHERS1981 CLC 1681 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-30Read full judgment →
- WARY AM vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR ETC.S1981 SCMR 296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court order that set aside the conviction and life imprisonment of three respondents for murder, acquitting two and convicting the third, Muhammad Akbar, under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The petitioner challenged the High Court's rejection of ocular evidence and recovery of weapons. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the prosecution's version of events in favor of the accused's plea of grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the absence of physical evidence of dragging the deceased, combined with the location of the body inside the accused's premises, rendered the prosecution's narrative improbable. The Court held that the alternative version presented by the accused—that the deceased was killed upon being discovered in a compromising position—was probable. Consequently, the Court affirmed the acquittal of two respondents and the conviction of the third under Section 304, Part I, finding no grounds for interference.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court accept an accused's alternative version of events if the prosecution's narrative is contradicted by physical evidence at the crime scene?
- Does the absence of dragging marks between the scene of the alleged incident and the location of the body undermine the prosecution's case?
- Is a conviction under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 appropriate when the accused kills under grave and sudden provocation?
- WAQAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 958 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
- WALLI MUHAMMAD vs KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 730 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-06Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs Mrs. HAMEEDA1981 PLD Karachi 794 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns an ejectment application filed by a widow under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The appellants challenged the order on the grounds that the respondent failed to serve the mandatory two-month notice prior to filing the ejectment application. The core legal questions were whether an ejectment application filed before the expiry of the statutory notice period is maintainable, and whether the landlord must prove 'good faith' under Section 14. The Court held that while the application was technically premature, the cause of action matured during the pendency of the proceedings, as the ejectment order was passed well after the two-month period had expired. The Court emphasized that technical objections regarding statutory notice must be raised at the earliest opportunity and cannot be introduced at the appellate stage. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 14 does not require the landlord to prove 'good faith,' as that requirement is absent from the statutory language, unlike in Section 15(2)(viii). The appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the failure to serve a full two-month notice under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 render an ejectment application incompetent if the cause of action matures during the pendency of the proceedings?
- Is a landlord required to prove 'good faith' when seeking ejectment under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Can a party raise an objection regarding the validity of a statutory notice for the first time at the appellate stage?
- WALI MUHAMMAD AND Another vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 533 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-16Read full judgment →
- Walayat Ahmed Khan and G. A. Mughal, Member vs IMTIAZ MUHAMMAD1981 PLC (C. S.) 442 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1980-11-09Read full judgment →
- WAJID ALI vs THE SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER (LAND) AND Other1981 SCMR 822 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a dispute over the transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. VII, where the petitioner claimed to have become the transferee of a house by operation of law due to continuous possession since before 1st January 1961. The contesting respondents obtained allotment of the same Khasra number, which was upheld by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner, and subsequently by the Lahore High Court in a writ petition, on the ground that the petitioner was present and had consented to the allotment by placing his thumb impression on the register. The core legal question was whether the lower authorities erred in treating the disputed thumb impression as genuine without forensic comparison. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any formal application by the petitioner to send the thumb impression to a Finger Print Expert, the competent authority was legally justified in relying on the normal presumption that official acts are regularly performed. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a settlement authority can rely on a thumb impression on an official register without forensic comparison when no formal application for expert examination is made?
- Does a person who consented to an allotment by affixing their thumb impression retain locus standi to challenge the same allotment subsequently?
- Can the presumption that official acts are regularly performed be invoked regarding disputed entries in allotment registers?
- WAHID BAKHSH vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 764 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-14Read full judgment →
- WAHEEDUDDIN KITCHLEW vs MURREE IMPROVEMENT TOWN TRUST Etc.1981 SCMR 611 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed by the petitioner against the Supreme Court's earlier judgment dismissing his appeal. The core legal questions were whether a review petition can be based on arguments not previously raised during the appeal, and whether the Court should relax procedural rules regarding the presence of counsel and the constitution of benches for review proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that a review cannot be sought on grounds that were available but not advanced during the initial hearing. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that review proceedings are not a rehearing of the original appeal. The Court reaffirmed that it will not relax the mandatory provisions of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, specifically regarding the necessity of legal representation and the procedural requirements for review applications. The judgment clarifies that the concept of 'review' under the Supreme Court Rules is specific and distinct from generic judicial reconsideration, and that parties cannot seek to bypass established procedural rules by requesting larger benches or re-arguing settled matters.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be based on a plea that was available to the petitioner but not advanced during the original appeal?
- Does a review petition constitute a rehearing of the original appeal?
- Can a party demand a larger bench for a review petition in contravention of the Supreme Court Rules?
- WAHEED KHAN vs The STATE1981 SCMR 1256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Waheed Khan, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding his conviction and sentence of death for the murder of Abdul Wahid under section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved the reliability and sufficiency of a dying statement for conviction without corroboration regarding the identity of the assailant, and whether the medical evidence established the ingredients of murder where death resulted from peritonitis following stab wounds. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a conviction can safely be based on a prompt and truthful dying statement alone, and that medical evidence conclusively proved the fatal injuries directly damaged vital organs and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The key principle laid down is that a genuine dying statement, when made promptly and found reliable, is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction, and peritonitis resulting directly from knife wounds to vital organs satisfies the definition of murder.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be safely based on a dying statement alone if the court is satisfied as to its genuineness and truth?
- Does the failure of corroborative witnesses to identify the assailant impair the evidentiary value of a reliable dying statement?
- Whether an offence falls within the definition of murder when death is attributed to peritonitis resulting from knife injuries inflicted on vital organs.
- W. C. AUSTIN vs PUNJAB CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL AND Other1981 SCMR 554 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his Letters Patent Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which concerned a dispute over the restoration of his seniority. The core legal question was whether seniority disputes constituted 'terms and conditions of service' amenable to constitutional writ jurisdiction and the impact of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974, on prior tribunal decisions. The Supreme Court held that the petition was correctly dismissed by the High Court because seniority disputes did not fall within the scope of 'terms and conditions of service' under the Interim Constitution of 1972, rendering the constitutional petition incompetent. Additionally, the Court ruled that determinations made by the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate) Tribunal prior to the enactment of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974, achieved finality as closed transactions, precluding further litigation. The Court clarified that the previous Tribunal did not qualify as a departmental authority under the 1974 Act. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that such seniority matters were not subject to judicial review under the invoked constitutional provisions.
Questions settled- Does a dispute regarding seniority fall within the definition of 'terms and conditions of service' under the Interim Constitution of 1972?
- Can a matter decided by the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate) Tribunal before the enactment of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974, be re-agitated?
- Does the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate) Tribunal qualify as a departmental authority under the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974?
- VILLAGE RESTAURANT vs IMRAN1981 PLC 376 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-10-21Read full judgment →
- VICTOR AZRAIAH vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB ETC., _1981 PLC (C. S.) 463 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-05-20Read full judgment →
- VICE-PRESIDENT, UNITED BANK LTD., SUKKUR vs GHULAM SARWAR AND OTHERS,1981 PLC 492 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-03Read full judgment →
- UTILITY STORES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs ABDUS SATTAR AND ANOTHER1981 PLC 95 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
- USMAN vs DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Karachi 588 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-23Read full judgment →
- USMAN vs ALLAH BAKHSH AND Another1981 SCMR 710 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioner by the Sessions Judge, D. G. Khan, in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion properly in cancelling the bail given the evidence presented against the accused. The petitioner, charged with inflicting fatal knife blows on the deceased, argued that the prosecution's allegations were inconsistent and that the recovered weapon was not blood-stained. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the record, found that the First Information Report was promptly lodged and specifically implicated the petitioner in the fatal assault. Furthermore, the Court noted that the recovered knife was indeed blood-stained, and the medical evidence did not exclude the possibility of the injuries described. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court acted correctly in cancelling the bail. The principle laid down is that bail cancellation is justified when the record, including the First Information Report and forensic evidence, prima facie establishes the petitioner's involvement in a serious offense.
Questions settled- Is the cancellation of bail by the High Court justified when the First Information Report specifically implicates the accused in a fatal assault?
- Does the presence of blood-stained weapons recovered from an accused support the cancellation of bail in a murder case?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in cancelling bail if the record supports the prosecution's allegations?
- USMAN AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS GLOBE TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND ANOTHER, .1981 PLC 676 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-12-13Read full judgment →
- URIS vs THE STATE1981 PLD Karachi 50 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashing of proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pending against the applicant before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Naushahro Feroze. The core legal question was whether proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be sustained solely on the basis of opinions and testimony from police officers regarding the applicant's alleged general reputation as a habitual offender without independent public witnesses. The High Court held that general reputation refers to the collective opinion of the community in which a person resides, rather than the individual opinion, suspicion, or history-sheets of police officers. The Court ruled that oral testimony or records from police personnel alone are inadmissible as hearsay and insufficient to prove habit or general repute. Consequently, continuing proceedings based exclusively on police evidence would amount to unnecessary harassment. The High Court accordingly quashed the proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and discharged the applicant's bail bonds.
Questions settled- Whether proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be sustained solely on the evidence of police officers regarding general reputation?
- What constitutes valid proof of general reputation to establish habit under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Are police history-sheets, entries in police diaries, or individual opinions of police officers admissible as evidence of general repute?
- UNIVERSITY TOWN COMMITTEE, PESHAWAR vs IFTIKHAR AHMAD AND 9 Other1981 PLD Pesharwar 99 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-05-30Read full judgment →
- UNITED TANNERIES LTD., SAHIWAL vs UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI1981 PLD Lahore 478 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-22Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD., LAHORE vs FARRUKH NAEEM BUTT /1981 PLC 69 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-12-19Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI vs Begum JAMILA KHATOON1981 CLC 299 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD. vs LYALLPUR BUS SERVICE ETC.1981 CLC 786 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-21Read full judgment →
- UNITED BANK LTD. vs Haji BAWA COMPANY LTD. AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 89 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit for recovery of Rs. 1,93,533.08 was instituted by United Bank Ltd. against the principal borrower and its personal guarantors/sureties. Defendant No. 2, a guarantor who contested the suit, argued that the claim was barred by limitation under Articles 65, 67, 115, or 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 because the last transaction occurred in June 1969, while the suit was filed in March 1976. The guarantor further claimed that the principal debtor's registered office was in Chittagong (East Pakistan) and that the claim against the principal debtor was extinguished by time and the cessation of East Pakistan, thereby discharging the guarantor. The Sindh High Court held that the deed of guarantee strictly governed the surety's liability. As the guarantee stipulated payment within two days after demand, the notice of demand served in February 1974 served as a condition precedent that gave rise to the cause of action against the surety. The claim was governed by Article 65 read with Article 115 of the Limitation Act and was within time. Furthermore, under Section 137 of the Contract Act 1872 and the terms of the guarantee, forbearance to sue the principal debtor or the debt becoming time-barred against the principal does not discharge the surety.
Questions settled- When does the period of limitation begin to run against a guarantor under a guarantee agreement stipulating payment within a fixed time after a notice of demand?
- Which Article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs a suit by a creditor against a guarantor on a deed of guarantee?
- Does a creditor's remedy against a surety lapse or get extinguished merely because the debt has become time-barred against the principal debtor?
- Can parties to a contract privately alter, curtail, or enlarge the statutory period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act 1908?
- UNITED BANK LTD. KARACHI vs SHABBIR AHMAD ABBASI AND Another1981 PLD Karachi 255 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved seven applications filed by the plaintiff, United Bank Ltd., in two recovery suits, seeking permission to produce documents at a late stage. The defendants opposed the applications, arguing that the plaintiff failed to file the documents with the plaint as required by Order VII, Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and refused inspection under Order XI, Rule 15. The core legal question was whether the court should exercise its discretion to allow the reception of these late documents despite procedural non-compliance. The court held that the applications should be allowed, reasoning that procedural rules regarding the filing of documents are intended to prevent the introduction of forged evidence and to expedite trials, not to shut out genuine evidence. The court emphasized that procedural provisions must be construed liberally to serve the interests of justice. Consequently, the court permitted the production of the documents, noting that the defendants were not prejudiced and could seek inspection, while dismissing the plaintiff's review application regarding costs.
Questions settled- Does the failure to file documents with the plaint as required by Order VII, Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, absolutely bar their later production?
- Can a court exercise its discretion to allow the reception of documents filed late in the proceedings?
- Is a defendant entitled to inspection of documents under Order XI, Rule 15, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, if those documents were not filed with the plaint?
- Does the failure to file an affidavit of documents under Order XI, Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, preclude a party from later producing documents?
- UMER DIN vs METROPOLITAN CORPORATION, KARACHI , .1981 PLC 651 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-27Read full judgment →
- UMER AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 267 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-21Read full judgment →
- UMARUDD1N vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAY, LAHORE AND ANOTHER, .1981 PLC 923 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-01Read full judgment →
- TUFA1L MUHAMMAD ALVI vs SECRETARY, S&GAD ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 532 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-06-11Read full judgment →
- TREASURER OF CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS FOR PAKISTAN vs CENTRAL BOARD1981 PLD Karachi 357 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, trustees of a charitable endowment, sought judicial review of an order by the Central Board of Revenue granting only partial abatement of excise duty for a shortfall in sugar production. The Board had applied a blanket 10% deduction from the claimed abatement based on a general formula rather than an individual assessment of the factory's circumstances. The core legal question was whether the Board could apply such a formula under Rule 4 of the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Sugar) Rules, 1972, and whether the petitioners were estopped from challenging this deduction due to their prior acquiescence. The Court held the impugned order invalid, ruling that the Board failed to exercise its quasi-judicial discretion subjectively as mandated by the Rules. The Court established that no estoppel can be pleaded against a statute; therefore, a party's prior consent or failure to object cannot validate an order that is otherwise contrary to law. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter for a fresh, lawful determination of the abatement claim based on the specific facts of the case.
Questions settled- Can a statutory authority apply a blanket formula to deny abatement claims without considering individual circumstances?
- Does the doctrine of estoppel prevent a party from challenging an administrative order that is contrary to statutory provisions?
- Is a party's prior consent to an illegal administrative order binding, or can they subsequently challenge it?
- Does the failure to object to a proposed administrative action preclude a party from later seeking judicial review?
- TRANS OCEAN ASIA vs ALPHA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KARACHI1981 CLC 1028 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a suit filed by a registered partnership firm against an insurance company claiming a refund of marine insurance premium amounting to Rs. 1,81,842.75 paid for an overage vessel. The core legal question was whether the appellant was contractually bound to pay the enhanced overage extra premium at 4 percent as demanded by the respondent insurer, or whether the rate was fixed at 1.5 percent. The Sindh High Court held that under subsection (4) of section 3-C of the Insurance Act 1938, payment of premium or a bank guarantee is a condition precedent to liability, and no enforceable insurance contract comes into existence without it. Furthermore, the court held that since the open cover note left the overage extra rate open for ascertainment through reinsurers, and the insurer remained at risk throughout the voyage, the appellant was liable to pay the enhanced extra premium of 4 percent and was not entitled to any refund. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether payment of premium or furnishing of a bank guarantee is a condition precedent to liability under a contract of insurance?
- Can an insured claim a refund of premium after the insurer has remained at risk throughout the voyage?
- Whether an insurance company is bound by an initially quoted overage extra rate when the cover note expressly leaves the rate subject to ascertainment from reinsurers?
- TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI vs ALEHSAN TRADING1981 CLC 999 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- TILE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs SHABBIR HUSSAIN1981 SCMR 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the retrospective application of a government notification affecting salary increments. The core legal question was whether a government notification dated 27-1-1976, which imposed a cap on the total number of advance increments for educational qualifications, was declaratory in nature and could be applied retrospectively to deprive a teacher of vested rights to increments earned prior to the notification. The Supreme Court held that the notification was not declaratory, as the prior rules did not contain such conditions. Consequently, the notification could not operate retrospectively to divest the respondent of rights already accrued. The Court affirmed the principle that new conditions imposed on existing entitlements cannot be treated as declaratory to justify retrospective application, particularly when such application would adversely affect the vested rights of an employee. Accordingly, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a government notification imposing new conditions on salary increments operate retrospectively?
- Is a notification introducing a cap on previously uncapped advance increments considered declaratory in nature?
- Does a government notification have the power to deprive an employee of vested rights to salary increments?
- THE WORKMEN OF TANDO JAM AND ITS FEEDERS vs DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL1981 PLC 47 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-03-19Read full judgment →
- THE VICE PRESIDENT vs CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND Other1981 SCMR 429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition in limine, based on counsel's concession that the matter was academic because the respondent employee had already been reinstated. The core legal question was whether the respondent's reinstatement pursuant to an Appellate Labour Tribunal order rendered the constitutional challenge to that order infructuous or academic, and whether the dismissal proceedings were vitiated by bias. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in treating the matter as academic, as reinstatement under protest pending litigation does not render a challenge infructuous. However, the Court affirmed the underlying finding of bias, noting that the Vice President who initiated the trap, served the charge-sheet, and testified against the employee acted as a judge in his own cause. The principle laid down is that an employer's involvement in the investigative and adjudicatory stages of a disciplinary proceeding creates a conflict of interest that violates the principles of natural justice, rendering such proceedings legally unsustainable.
Questions settled- Does the reinstatement of an employee pursuant to an appellate tribunal order render a constitutional challenge to that order academic or infructuous?
- Does an employer who initiates disciplinary proceedings, serves the charge-sheet, and testifies against an employee act as a judge in his own cause?
- Can a mixed question of law and fact regarding an employee's status as a workman be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court?
- THE STATE vs U. NIAMAT MOULVI1981 P Cr. L J 382 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-14Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs TARIQ EMs1981 P Cr. L J 226 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-24Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MUHAMIVIAD ARIF AND 2 Others1981 P Cr. L J 306 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-08Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs GUL HAMEED1981 P Cr. L J 491 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-08Read full judgment →
- THE SECRETARY GOV ER14MENT OF PTJNJAB vs AHMAD KAMALUDDIN1981 SCMR 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Government of the Punjab sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had ordered the expunction of adverse remarks recorded in the respondent's character roll. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal possessed the jurisdiction to review and expunge adverse annual confidential remarks recorded by a superior officer, or whether such remarks were immune from judicial scrutiny as a subjective assessment. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that instructions governing the recording, communication, and expunction of such remarks, when read in conjunction with the Civil Servants Act, constitute part of the terms and conditions of service. Consequently, these remarks are not immune from review. The Court clarified that while the recording of remarks is the exclusive competence of superior officers, the process is subject to departmental representation and subsequent appeal to the Service Tribunal. The judgment established that limitations on judicial review applicable to constitutional courts do not restrict the appellate jurisdiction of Service Tribunals, which are empowered to determine both questions of fact and law.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to review and order the expunction of adverse remarks recorded in a civil servant's character roll?
- Are instructions regarding the recording and expunction of annual confidential remarks considered part of the terms and conditions of service under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
- Do the limitations on constitutional jurisdiction regarding the review of adverse remarks apply to the appellate jurisdiction of Service Tribunals?
- THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND Others vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN1981 SCMR 590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by special leave arises from concurrent lower court decisions stemming from a judgment pronounced by a Civil Judge under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for failure to file a written statement. The High Court had dismissed the petitioners' civil revision as not maintainable, holding that a second appeal lay to the High Court against the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court examined the definitions and provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, specifically noting that an order under Order VIII, Rule 10 is an appealable order under Order XLIII, Rule 1(b) read with section 104, and thus does not constitute a decree. Consequently, no second appeal lay to the High Court, rendering the civil revision maintainable under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and remanded the case back to the High Court for determination on merits in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 amounts to a decree?
- Is a civil revision maintainable against an order when a second appeal to the High Court is barred?
- Does an appeal lie from an appellate order passed under section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- THE PREMIER INSURANCE Co. (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI vs EJAZ AHMED1981 CLC 311 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Single Judge's order dismissing objections against an arbitration award and making it a rule of the Court, stemming from an insurance claim dispute over a bus destroyed by fire. The appellant contended the award was based on no evidence, contained an error of law apparent on its face regarding the burden of proof, and that the arbitration reference by one partner was incompetent under Section 19(2) of the Partnership Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Umpire's appreciation of evidence was not open to scrutiny under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, and the award was not based on no evidence. It further clarified that an error of law 'apparent on the face of the record' must be discoverable solely from the award itself, not by reference to external documents like the insurance policy unless explicitly incorporated. Lastly, the Court ruled that implied authority for a partner to refer a dispute to arbitration is sufficient, and a stranger cannot challenge such authority.
Questions settled- Can an arbitration award be set aside on the ground that it is based on no evidence if some evidence was presented to the Umpire?
- What constitutes an 'error of law apparent on the face of the award' for the purpose of setting aside an arbitration award?
- Can a court substitute its own finding on the appreciation of evidence for that of an Arbitrator or Umpire under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act?
- Is express written authority required for one partner to refer a dispute to arbitration on behalf of other partners under Section 19(2) of the Partnership Act?
- Can a stranger to a partnership challenge the competency of one partner to make a reference to arbitration on behalf of the firm?
- THE MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., KARACHI vs AKHLAQ AHMAD AND Another1981 PLD Karachi 636 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-11Read full judgment →
- THE JETPUR MEMON ASSOCIATION vs Mst. ZUBEDA BEGUM AND 9 OTHERS1981 CLC 1245 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
- THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD IRSHAD ,1981 PLC 383 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 1981-03-15Read full judgment →
- THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI vs ALI1981 PLC 371 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-08-31Read full judgment →
- THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD1981 CLC 197 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. LAHORE vs LAHORE TEXTILE GENERAL1981 SCMR 1069 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court, which had summarily dismissed the petitioner's application challenging the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision. The Income-tax Officer had imposed a penalty on the respondent under section 46(1) of the Income-tax Act for failing to comply with a demand notice. The Tribunal had set aside the penalty because the Central Board of Revenue had permitted the respondent to pay its income-tax in installments, relying on precedent. The core legal question was whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty was not exigible under the law. The Supreme Court held that the permission granted by the Central Board of Revenue to pay tax in installments was a relevant circumstance for the Tribunal to consider when deciding the appeal against the penalty, and thus the Tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction in allowing the appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal while leaving open the broader question regarding the correctness of the earlier precedent.
Questions settled- Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer under section 46(1) of the Income-tax Act was not exigible under the law?
- Is the permission by the Central Board of Revenue to pay income-tax in installments a relevant circumstance in an appeal against a penalty imposed for non-payment?
- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE vs MESSRS UNIVERSAL LIFE AND GENERAL INSURANCE Co1981 SCMR 659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the allowability of establishment and salary expenses claimed by an insurance company for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61. The respondent company had commenced its life insurance business prior to obtaining the requisite certificate from the Controller of Insurance under the Insurance Act. The Income-tax Officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner disallowed a portion of the expenses on the ground that carrying on business without the certificate rendered it illegal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, and the High Court answered the reference in favor of the assessee, holding that tax authorities are concerned with income regardless of its lawfulness, and considerations of penal liability under insurance law are alien to income-tax law. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that if income is subject to taxation even if earned unlawfully, corresponding expenses incurred in earning or attempting to earn such income cannot be denied solely on the ground of regulatory non-compliance.
Questions settled- Whether expenses incurred before the actual commencement or formal certification of an insurance business are permissible deductions under income-tax law?
- Does the carrying on of a business without obtaining a regulatory certificate disentitle the assessee from claiming deductions for establishment charges and salaries?
- Are considerations of legality or penal liability under separate regulatory statutes relevant to the determination of taxable income and allowable expenses under income-tax law?