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.
- PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION LTD. vs M. BABAR ZAMAN1981 PLC 219 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns Intra Court Appeals challenging the validity of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Pakistan Television Corporation against its employees. The core legal question was whether the Pakistan Television Corporation Limited Employees' Service Rules, framed by a Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission, effectively ousted the application of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, thereby allowing the employer to bypass the Ordinance's strict timelines for initiating misconduct proceedings. The Court held that the Service Rules were invalid because the power to regulate service conditions, delegated by the Federal Government to the Chairman of the National Industrial Relations Commission under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, could not be further sub-delegated to a Member of the Commission. Consequently, the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, remained applicable. The key principle laid down is the doctrine of delegatus non potest delegare: a delegate cannot further sub-delegate statutory powers unless expressly authorized by the legislature, and administrative rules made through unauthorized sub-delegation are void and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Can a statutory authority empowered to make rules further delegate that power to a subordinate unless expressly authorized by the statute?
- Does the definition of 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, exclude employees who perform skilled work that is neither strictly manual nor clerical?
- Are disciplinary proceedings initiated after the one-month limitation period prescribed by the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, legally sustainable?
- Can rules framed by a sub-delegate of a specified authority override the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- PAKISTAN SHIPPING LINES LTD. vs TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI AND 21981 CLC 1451 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN SHIPPING CORPORATION, KARACHI vs SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL1981 PLC 9 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal under section 64 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 against the judgment of the Social Security Court. The core legal question is whether the statutory appellant Pakistan Shipping Corporation ceased to be liable for social security contributions under the Ordinance following the transfer of ownership and management of certain taken-over establishments (Messrs Muhammadi Engineering Works Ltd. and Messrs East & West Steamship Company) to the Corporation. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and held that the liability to pay social security contributions does not cease by a mere change of ownership or management as long as the establishment continues to exist as an organization and employees work in or in connection with its work. The key principle laid down is that social security legislation is beneficial and remedial, meaning obligations under section 20 of the Ordinance attach to the establishment as an organization and persist regardless of changes in ownership or corporate structure.
Questions settled- Does the liability to pay social security contributions cease upon the transfer of ownership or management of an establishment to a statutory corporation?
- Whether an establishment under the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 is confined strictly to the physical premises or constitutes an organization?
- Does a change in the employer or corporate ownership affect the statutory obligation to contribute to the social security fund for employees working in connection with the establishment?
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs ASIRUR REHMAN AND ANOTHER , .1981 PLC 725 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION vs TABASSUM PERVAIZ1981 PLC 533 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-26Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN NARCOTICS CONTROL BOARD vs ENRICO MINICUCCI AND 2 OTHERS1981 P Cr. L J 420 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-19Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY LTD., KARACHI vs Mirza MUHAMMAD1981 PLC 368 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN JUTE & SYNTHETICS LTD., KARACHI vs ABRAR HUSSAIN,1981 PLC 793 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-08-18Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION vs Mst. SAFOORAN1981 CLC 1636 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-12Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION vs MESSRS PAK SAAF DRY1981 PLD Supreme Court 553 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a civil suit filed by the respondent against the appellant for the recovery of money for dry cleaning and dyeing services rendered under an agreement containing an arbitration clause. The appellant applied under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for a stay of the suit proceedings to refer the dispute to arbitration. The High Court Single Judge rejected the application on the ground that the appellant had taken a step in the proceedings by applying for extensions of time to file a written statement, thereby submitting to the court's jurisdiction. A Letters Patent appeal against this order was dismissed as not maintainable under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal questions examined were whether the right of appeal under the Arbitration Act was preserved despite the Law Reforms Ordinance, and whether seeking an adjournment to file a written statement without instructions or knowledge of the arbitration agreement constitutes a 'step in the proceedings'. The Supreme Court held that the right of appeal was a substantive right unaffected by subsequent general procedural changes, and that seeking time to file a written statement under such circumstances does not amount to a step in the proceedings or a submission to jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, and the suit proceedings were stayed for reference to arbitration.
Questions settled- Whether the right of appeal under the Arbitration Act, 1940 is a substantive right that remains unaffected by subsequent procedural enactments?
- Does an application for an extension of time to file a written statement invariably constitute a 'step in the proceedings' under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Can a defendant who seeks an adjournment to obtain instructions and inspect the plaint be deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court?
- Whether an appeal is maintainable under section 39 of the Arbitration Act against an order refusing to stay a suit.
- PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION vs KHALID WAHEED AND Other1981 SCMR 573 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a criminal complaint filed by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation against the directors of Khyber Express Limited for alleged criminal breach of trust and cheating following the dishonor of several cheques. The Peshawar High Court had quashed the complaint under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, reasoning that a company is a distinct legal entity and the complaint failed to specify which individual director was responsible. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. The Court held that the High Court acted prematurely and without jurisdiction in quashing the complaint. The core legal principle affirmed is that the doctrine of separate legal entity does not insulate directors from criminal liability for a company's actions. Courts may pierce the veil of incorporation to identify the individuals responsible for the company's criminal conduct. Consequently, the Magistrate is required to conduct an inquiry to determine individual culpability rather than dismissing the complaint at the initial stage for lack of specific attribution.
Questions settled- Can a criminal complaint be quashed solely because it fails to specify which individual director is responsible for the company's alleged offense?
- Does the doctrine of separate legal entity shield directors from criminal liability for offenses committed by the company?
- Is it permissible to pierce the corporate veil in criminal proceedings to determine the liability of company directors?
- Does the issuance of a notice by a Magistrate to respondents in a criminal complaint constitute an excess of jurisdiction?
- PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL PROMOTORS LTD.. vs PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL1981 PLC 465 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the Social Security Court, which dismissed the appellant's challenge to a demand notice for social security contributions as incompetent. The core legal question was whether correspondence addressed to local directors of the Social Security Institution constitutes a valid complaint under Section 57 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, thereby creating a decision appealable under Section 59. The High Court upheld the dismissal, ruling that the appeal was incompetent. The Court held that letters addressed to local directors do not satisfy the statutory requirement of filing a complaint before the Commissioner, as mandated by the Ordinance and the Punjab Social Security (Determination of manner and time for deciding complaints and disputes and review of decisions) Regulations, 1973. The key principle established is that statutory dispute resolution procedures must be strictly followed; an appeal under Section 59 is only maintainable against a formal decision of the Institution or Commissioner, not against preliminary notices issued by subordinate officers.
Questions settled- Does correspondence addressed to a local director of the Social Security Institution constitute a valid complaint under Section 57 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- Is an appeal under Section 59 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 maintainable against a demand notice issued by a subordinate officer of the Institution?
- Must a complaint under Section 57 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 be filed specifically before the Commissioner to be considered valid?
- PAKISTAN FISHERIES LTD. vs DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 1074 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-03Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN ENGINEERING Co. LTD., KARACHI vs SULTAN MUHAMMAD1981 PLC 701 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-24Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN ENGINEERING CO. LTD. vs PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY1981 PLC 79 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order regarding the imposition of penalties for the non-payment of social security contributions. The core legal question was whether an employer's liability to pay contributions and the subsequent penalty for non-payment under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, is contingent upon the issuance of a demand notice or the actual provision of services by the institution. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the obligation to pay contributions is a mandatory statutory duty that arises immediately upon the application of the Ordinance to an establishment. The court established the principle that these statutory obligations are independent of any administrative action or demand by the Social Security Institution. Consequently, failure to comply with the requirements of sections 20 and 21 of the Ordinance automatically triggers the penal provisions under section 23, regardless of whether the institution has provided medical care or issued a formal demand for payment.
Questions settled- Does the obligation to pay social security contributions arise only upon the issuance of a demand notice by the institution?
- Is an employer liable for penalties under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, for failing to pay contributions despite the absence of medical services provided to workers?
- Are the statutory obligations of an employer under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, dependent on action initiated by the Social Security Institution?
- PAKISTAN CABLES LTD, vs EMPLOYEES' UNION, .1981 PLC 187 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-01-23Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN CABLE EMPLOYEES' UNION, LABOUR WELFARE CENTRE AND ANOTHER1981 PLC 589 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-16Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL LTD., LAHORE vs Mst. SHAHAN NASIM AKBAR1981 CLC 119 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAK OCEAN SHIPPING Co. LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1981 P Cr. L J 736 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAK CIGARETTE LABOUR UNION KHYBER TOBACCO Co. LTD., MARDAN vs PAKISTAN TOBACCO Co. LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER LABOUR UNION AND ANOTHER Link 11981 PLD Supreme Court 495 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two appeals concerning the interpretation of Standing Order 10-C of the West Pakistan (Industrial and Commercial Employment) (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which mandates the payment of a statutory profit-sharing bonus to workmen. The core legal questions were whether a bonus paid under an agreement or settlement becomes part of the workmen's wages, and whether workmen are entitled to receive the statutory bonus in addition to any contractually agreed profit bonus. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a bonus is a remuneration distinct from and in addition to wages, representing a share in profits, and does not permanently merge into wages. The Court further held that Standing Order 10-C establishes a minimum statutory share in profits. Consequently, an employer is not liable to pay both the agreed bonus and the statutory bonus in full as separate, cumulative liabilities. Instead, the employer is entitled to set off the contractually paid bonus against the statutory liability, remaining liable only to make good any shortfall where the agreed bonus is less than the statutory minimum.
Questions settled- Does a bonus paid under a settlement or agreement become a permanent part of a workman's wages?
- Are workmen entitled to receive a statutory profit bonus under Standing Order 10-C in addition to a contractually agreed profit bonus?
- Can an employer set off the amount of bonus paid under a settlement against its statutory liability under Standing Order 10-C?
- Does the absence of an express reference to profits in a settlement deed preclude a bonus from being classified as a profit-based bonus?
- ORIENTAL SHIPPING Co. LTD., KARACHI vs M. V. MONTI CRISTO AND 31981 CLC 748 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-12-20Read full judgment →
- OGHAN AND Another vs THE STATE- Respondent1981 P Cr. L J 425 · Sindh High Court · 1979-07-18Read full judgment →
- OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, CENTRAL RECORD OFFICE, LAHORE AND Others vs BASHIR AHMAD AND Othsrss1981 SCMR 1198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition arose from an appeal involving the cancellation of land allotments under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Land originally confirmed in favour of certain displaced persons had been sold to vendees. Subsequent proceedings initiated by informers to cancel the allotment on grounds of bogus claims were dismissed after inquiry by the officer exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and that order attained finality. Fresh notices issued by the authorities were set aside by the High Court and the Supreme Court in appeal. The petitioner sought a review of the Supreme Court's judgment to explicitly incorporate an oral observation made during the hearing regarding the authority's power to reopen the matter. The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the review petition on the facts presented. Allowing the review petition, the Court held that if the officer exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner sought to reopen the case strictly on the ground of fresh fraud—and not to re-examine the correctness of the entitlement—he was free to do so, and directed the incorporation of this observation into the judgment.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be allowed to incorporate an omitted observation regarding the authority's power to reopen proceedings on grounds of fresh fraud?
- Does the finality of a settlement order bar the reopening of an allotment case if new evidence of fraud is subsequently discovered?
- Can administrative delay in obtaining sanction from a competent authority constitute a valid ground for condoning delay in filing a review petition?
- OFFICE, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS vs S. JAFFAR ABBAS ZAIDI , . (1981 PLC 347 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-15Read full judgment →
- OBAIDULLAH KHAN vs THE LABOUR COURT1981 PLC 321 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- NUR HALIM SHAH vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 913 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-03-27Read full judgment →
- NOUBAT AND Other vs THE STATE1981 PLD Karachi 204 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
- NOSHERKHAN. vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Lah. 661 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →
- NOSHER RUSTAM SIDHWA vs THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1981 PLD F SC 245 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-04-26Read full judgment →
- NORWICH UNION LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY vs Mst. ZAINAB BIBI1981 CLC 1722 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first appeal arose from a money suit filed by the mother of a deceased insured against an insurance society for recovery of claims under two life insurance policies. The policies had lapsed due to non-payment of premiums and insufficient surrender value. Upon the society's demand for a declaration of good health as a condition precedent for reinstatement, the insured provided health declarations on two occasions, leading to the revival of the policies. Following the insured's death, medical evidence revealed that he had suppressed serious pre-existing ailments when making those declarations. The trial court found the health declarations false but decreed the suit, holding the condition was not part of the revived policies. On appeal, the High Court reversed the decree. The High Court held that an insurer may impose new conditions to revive a lapsed policy, making such declarations integral to the revival contract. Since life insurance requires utmost good faith (uberrimae fidei), the insured's fraudulent non-disclosure rendered the contract voidable, entitling the insurer to repudiate liability.
Questions settled- Whether an insurer can legally impose new terms and conditions, such as a declaration of good health, for the revival of a lapsed life insurance policy?
- Whether a false declaration of good health submitted to procure the revival of a lapsed life insurance policy entitles the insurer to repudiate its liability?
- Does the failure to formally incorporate a health declaration into the original policy document prevent an insurer from relying on its falsity to repudiate a revived policy?
- NOORUL HASSAN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 772 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1981-08-16Read full judgment →
- NOORUDDIN HUSSAIN AND Another vs DIAMOND VACUUM BOTTLE1981 PLD Karachi 720 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for an interim injunction filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for alleged patent infringement and breach of a prior consent decree. The core legal questions were whether the suit was barred under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as an attempt to execute a previous decree, and whether an interim injunction could be granted to enforce negative covenants within that decree despite provisions of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The Court held that Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, was inapplicable because the current dispute involved a third party not present in the original suit. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that where a consent decree contains negative covenants, the Court may grant an injunction to enforce the bargain made between parties. The Court laid down the principle that the validity of a patent is presumed for interlocutory purposes if previously established, and that courts may enforce negative covenants in consent decrees via injunction, independent of the balance of convenience, provided the covenantee has not acted unjustly.
Questions settled- Does Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a suit that involves a party who was not part of the original decree?
- Can a court grant an interim injunction to enforce negative covenants contained in a consent decree?
- Is the validity of a patent presumed in an interlocutory application if it was previously established in a prior suit between the parties?
- NOOR SILK MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs MUSHARRAF HUSSAIN , .1981 PLC 645 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-12-16Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD , .1981 PLC 604 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-22Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs S. H. O., QADIRPUR (JHANG) ETC1981 P Cr. L J 1259 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeks the quashment of police investigation proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to First Information Report No. 53, registered at Police Station Qadirpur. The core legal question was whether the registration of a second criminal case against the petitioner, concerning the same subject matter as a previously cancelled case, was initiated with mala fide intent by the complainant. The Court held that the initiation of the second case was indeed mala fide, as the complainant had concealed material facts, including the prior registration and subsequent cancellation of an earlier case regarding the same allegations. The Court observed that the police had previously investigated the matter and found the allegations baseless. Consequently, the Court quashed the investigation proceedings. The key principle laid down is that where a criminal case is registered with mala fide intent, involving the suppression of material facts and the re-agitation of matters already concluded by a prior police investigation, the High Court possesses the authority to quash such proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of law.
Questions settled- Can the High Court quash police investigation proceedings initiated with mala fide intent?
- Does the concealment of material facts by a complainant in a subsequent FIR constitute grounds for quashment?
- Is it permissible to initiate a second criminal case on the same subject matter after a previous case has been investigated and cancelled by the police?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs MUSTEHKAM CEMENT LTD., RAWALPINDI /1981 PLC 101 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-09Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs MUMTAZ BAIG1981 CLC 1242 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-05Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTYSETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND Other1981 SCMR 974 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the transfer of a disputed portion of a shop in Multan under settlement laws. The core legal question is whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner could subsequently review a prior order treating the premises as a single commercial unit and whether a rival claimant was entitled to transfer based on a settlement form and possession. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to challenge an earlier remand order of the High Court directing reconsideration of the rival claimant's application, thereby affirming the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition. The court laid down the principle that a party cannot bypass an earlier binding remand order by the High Court and claim the property as a single unit when the matter has already been opened for fresh determination regarding rival applications.
Questions settled- Whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner could review an order treating a property as a single commercial unit?
- Is a party precluded from raising the plea of a single commercial unit if they failed to challenge an earlier remand order of the High Court?
- Whether a rival claimant was entitled to the transfer of the disputed premises under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD AND Another vs Tim STATE1981 PLD Lahore 60 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three criminal appeals and allied murder references arising from two separate sessions trials where the Additional Sessions Judge verbatim copied and imported portions of witness statements from the record of one case into the other. The core legal question was whether the mechanical reproduction of evidence across separate trials constitutes a mere procedural irregularity curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, or a fundamental illegality that vitiates the proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that the deliberate departure from the mandatory statutory mode of recording evidence faithfully and fully for each individual trial is an absolute illegality rather than a technical oversight, and cannot be cured by the curative provisions of section 537 regardless of whether prejudice or failure of justice is shown. The court laid down the principle that a substantial and conscious transgression of mandatory procedural requirements for conducting trials vitiates the proceedings entirely, setting aside the convictions and sentences and ordering a retrial.
Questions settled- Whether copying portions of witness statements from the record of one trial into another constitutes a curable irregularity under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a substantial and conscious departure from the mandatory procedure for recording evidence vitiate a criminal trial entirely?
- Is the question of prejudice or failure of justice relevant when a trial court adopts a mode of trial not authorised by law?
- Do the curative provisions of section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to absolute illegalities arising from a willful disregard of statutory trial procedures?
- NOOR HUSSAIN vs MISRI KHAN AND Other1981 SCMR1125 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the resumption of land allotted to him under the 'Grow-More-Food Scheme' due to his failure to pay dues. The Collector resumed the land, a decision initially challenged by the petitioner in a civil suit, which was decreed in his favor. However, the appellate court reversed this, and the High Court dismissed the petitioner's second appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that under Section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912, the Collector was required to determine if the breach was rectifiable and provide an opportunity to remedy the default before resumption. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had already been granted an opportunity by the Commissioner to pay the dues, which he failed to utilize. The Court ruled that the petitioner could not demand successive extensions of time for payment, as this would render the Collector's authority to enforce compliance ineffective. Consequently, the resumption was upheld, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a Collector required to provide an opportunity to rectify a breach before resuming land under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912?
- Can a defaulter claim a right to successive extensions of time for payment of land dues after failing to comply with a previous extension granted by a Commissioner?
- Does the failure to comply with a grace period granted by a Commissioner justify the forfeiture of land tenancy?
- NOOR DIN (REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS) vs BASHIR AHMAD AND Otiierss1981 SCMR 1212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appeal, filed by the legal heirs of Mst. Zainab Bibi and Noor Din, challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that restored the allotment of disputed land to the respondents, Bashir Ahmad and Shakoor Ahmad. The core legal question concerned the validity of the reservation of land in favor of the appellants and whether they held a superior claim over the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the reservation of land for the appellants was incompetent and not authorized under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, as it failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for reserving land for old claimants. Furthermore, the Court determined that the respondents, as sitting allottees, held a superior claim because, at the time the land was proposed in their favor, the appellants had no pending claim in the village. The Court affirmed that rehabilitation authorities cannot ignore the rights of valid allottees based on an illegal reservation. The appeal was dismissed, establishing that land allotment priority depends on the status of claims at the time of the proposal.
Questions settled- Can rehabilitation authorities reserve land for a claimant pending adjudication of their claim without specific statutory authorization?
- Does the status of a 'sitting allottee' depend on the presence of a pending claim in the village at the time of the land proposal?
- Is an illegal or void order of reservation of land by rehabilitation authorities enforceable?
- Does the principle of 'first come first served' apply to land allotment if the claimant has not yet established a valid claim in the village?
- NOOR ALAM AND 2 Others vs FAZAL DAD1981 SCMR 439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the concurrent decisions of the lower courts, which held that a sonless Bhatti Rajput of Gujar Khan Tehsil, District Rawalpindi, was competent under Customary Law to gift ancestral land to his daughter's son. The core legal question was whether a sonless proprietor possessed unrestricted power to make such a gratuitous alienation of ancestral property under the applicable custom. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the proprietor was indeed competent to make the gift in favor of his daughter's son. The Court laid down the principle that in the western districts of the Punjab, which have been more influenced by Muhammadan Law, the older Riwaj-i-Am serves as a crucial check on subsequent entries, and daughters' rights are regarded with greater consideration, thereby upholding the validity of such gifts under Customary Law.
Questions settled- Whether a sonless Bhatti Rajput of Gujar Khan Tehsil is competent under Customary Law to gift ancestral land to his daughter's son?
- Do proprietors in the western districts of the Punjab possess unrestricted powers of gratuitous alienation by way of gift or bequest under custom?
- What is the evidentiary weight of the earlier Riwaj-i-Am compared to subsequent entries regarding customary powers of alienation?
- WARTS AND 9 Other vs THE STATE1981 PLD Supreme Court 127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants for rioting and murder. The core legal dispute arose from longstanding agrarian tensions between landlords and tenants over crop shares and land demarcation, culminating in a violent clash resulting in a death and multiple injuries. Both parties presented conflicting versions, with the prosecution alleging a premeditated ambush and the defence pleading self-defence following a chance encounter. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence, noting that both sides suppressed material truths, and concluded that the incident was not a premeditated ambush but a sudden fight arising from a chance encounter in the heat of passion without undue advantage being taken. Consequently, the Court held that Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applied, altering the conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that where evidence reveals a sudden quarrel and mutual combat without premeditation, the case falls under Exception IV to Section 300, warranting a conviction under Section 304 Part I rather than murder.
Questions settled- Whether a fatal altercation arising from a chance encounter without premeditation attracts Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can statements of accused persons under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be utilized to evaluate the plausibility of a defence plea in a criminal trial?
- How should courts evaluate conflicting versions and suppressed facts in cases involving cross-cases and mutual combat?
- NOOR AKBAR vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 1233 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMAD Shahs vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, Etc,1981 SCMR 337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging a revisional order by the Member, Board of Revenue. The petitioner had filed a pre-emption suit under paragraph 25(d) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115) before the Collector, who ordered the deposit of half the sale money. Upon failure to deposit within the extended time, the Collector rejected the plaint under section 23(4) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act. The core legal question was whether the procedural provisions of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, including the power to order deposit of pre-emption money and reject plaints, apply to pre-emption suits filed under Martial Law Regulation 115 when the Regulation itself does not prescribe a procedure. The Supreme Court held that while M.L.R. 115 creates a substantive right of pre-emption for tenants, it does not provide procedural rules, meaning the procedural framework of the provincial pre-emption law applies. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the procedural provisions of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act apply to pre-emption suits filed under paragraph 25(d) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115)?
- Does a Collector acting under M.L.R. 115 have the power to order the deposit of pre-emption money and reject a plaint for non-compliance under the provincial pre-emption law?
- Can a new factual plea regarding an extension of time for depositing pre-emption money be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- NOOR AHMAD SHAH AND Others vs Ch. WALI MUHAMMAD1981 SCMR 235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld an order striking off the petitioner's defense in an ejectment proceeding. The core legal question was whether rent payments made by a tenant for a period prior to the arrears claimed by the landlord could be adjusted against the subsequent arrears ordered by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller had ordered the tenant to deposit arrears for a specific period, excluding time-barred rent. The tenant sought to adjust earlier payments against these arrears, a request denied by the Rent Controller and the High Court, but initially allowed by the first appellate court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly reversed the appellate court's decision. The ratio of the decision is that payments made specifically for rent due in a prior period cannot be adjusted against arrears of rent accrued for a subsequent period, as they constitute distinct obligations. The Court affirmed that such prior payments do not qualify as a valid tender against subsequent arrears.
Questions settled- Can rent payments made for a period prior to the arrears claimed be adjusted against the arrears of rent ordered by a Rent Controller?
- Does a deposit of rent for a period preceding the arrears constitute a valid tender that can be adjusted against subsequent arrears?
- NOOR ABDULLAH AND Another vs The STATE1981 SCMR 859 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was directed against an interim order of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which refused the petitioners' application for suspension of sentence pending their appeal against conviction and five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners contended that the eye-witnesses ought not to have been believed because they were named as accused in a counter case. The Supreme Court observed that such contentions related directly to the merits of the case, which fell to be appreciated and determined during the regular hearing of the main appeal. Holding that the High Court's refusal to suspend the sentences did not violate any provision or principle of law, particularly where specific roles of firing upon the victim were attributed to the petitioners by witnesses believed by the trial court, the Supreme Court found no ground for interference and dismissed the petition in limine.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's discretionary order refusing suspension of sentence when the plea raised pertains entirely to the merits of the pending appeal?
- Whether the credibility of prosecution eye-witnesses based on their status as accused in a counter case can be determined at the stage of an application for suspension of sentence rather than at the regular appeal hearing?
- Does specific attribution of firearm injuries to convicts by witnesses believed by the trial court justify refusing suspension of sentence pending appeal?
- NIZAMUDDIN YAHYA AND ANOTHER vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF LAND1981 CLC 536 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- NIZAMUDDIN vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 601 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
- NIZAMUDDIN AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS MUMTAZ AHMAD SILK MILLS LTD., KARACHI ,1981 PLC 343 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-02Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 476 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
- NIAZOO ALI AS NIAZ MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1981S C M R 1217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a triple murder trial where the appellant Niazoo Ali was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for the murder of Muhammad, alongside the acquittal of his co-accused by the courts below. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the testimony of eye-witnesses, part of whose evidence led to the acquittal or benefit of the doubt for co-accused, could still be relied upon to sustain the conviction of the appellant without independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not reject the eye-witnesses as untruthful but merely extended the benefit of the doubt to certain co-accused due to lack of overt acts, and that the specific and consistent role attributed to the appellant regarding the fatal firing was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that eyewitness testimony is divisible where specific roles are assigned, and the acquittal of some co-accused on grounds of caution does not inherently vitiate the conviction of another against whom the evidence is solid and consistent.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses is divisible when some co-accused are acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt?
- Can the conviction of an accused for murder be sustained solely on eye-witness testimony without corroborative recovery evidence?
- Does the acquittal of certain co-accused due to minor contradictions require the automatic acquittal of the remaining co-accused assigned specific overt acts?
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1981 SCMR 797 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed against an earlier order of the Supreme Court dismissing a criminal petition for special leave to appeal. The petitioner, Niaz Muhammad, along with another accused, was convicted under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentenced to death, which convictions and sentences were upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions involved whether the review petition could entertain grounds not pressed during the initial hearing and whether a minor discrepancy regarding medical evidence constituted an error patent on the face of the record warranting review. The Supreme Court held that grounds not pressed at the original hearing cannot be re-opened without satisfactory explanation, and minor inaccuracies in describing medical evidence that do not affect the substantive conclusions of the case do not justify a review. The key principle laid down is that a review petition cannot be used to re-argue points deliberately omitted or not pressed by competent counsel at the initial hearing, nor will minor factual misdescriptions in judgments lead to review unless they impact the core findings.
Questions settled- Can a party re-open and argue a ground in a review petition that was omitted or not pressed at the original hearing without providing a satisfactory explanation?
- Whether a minor inaccuracy in the description of medical evidence in a judgment constitutes an error patent on the face of the record sufficient to warrant a review?
- Does the absence of a bullet extracted from a dead body affect the conclusion that injuries were caused by two different types of weapons when supported by other medical descriptions?
- NIAMAT ALI vs The STATE1981 SCMR 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the appellant's acquittal by the trial court for murder was set aside and he was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal question concerned the appreciation of evidence in a murder trial, specifically regarding dying declarations, medical evidence consistency with weapon dimensions, and the presence or absence of motive. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly set aside the perverted acquittal of the appellant, finding that the First Information Report was rightly treated as a dying declaration requiring no further corroboration, that minor discrepancies regarding blood stains and weapon dimensions were not fatal to the prosecution case, and that the sentence awarded was already the lesser alternative provided by law. The court laid down principles governing the evidentiary value of dying declarations and the evaluation of medical evidence in criminal trials.
Questions settled- Can a First Information Report dictated by an injured person who later succumbs to injuries be treated as a dying declaration?
- Whether an acquittal based on a perverse view of evidence can be interfered with by an appellate court?
- Is independent corroboration strictly required when a conviction is based on a reliable dying declaration?
- Does a discrepancy between the weapon width and the injury dimension alone suffice to discard ocular testimony?
- NEW JUBILEE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI AND 31981 PLC 566 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- NAZIR OF THE HIGH COURT OF SIND & BALUCHISTAN, KARACHI/DecreeHolder1981 CLC 372 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This execution application was filed by the decree-holder to execute a decree passed in 1959. The primary legal question addressed by the court was whether the second execution application was barred by limitation under Article 183 of the Limitation Act, 1908, considering an amendment made by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, which reduced the limitation period from twelve years to six years. The court held that the right to execute a decree is a vested right, and an alteration reducing the limitation period is not retrospective; therefore, decrees passed prior to the 1972 amendment continue to be governed by the unamended twelve-year period. The court further held that the mere pendency of a first execution application does not provide a continuing right to save a subsequent application from limitation, but simultaneous or successive execution applications are not barred by law. The execution application was found to be within time and was granted.
Questions settled- Whether the amendment made by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 reducing the limitation period under Article 183 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is retrospective in nature?
- Does the pendency of a first execution application by itself provide a continuing right to save a second execution application from limitation?
- Is there any statutory prohibition against filing a second execution application while a first execution application is still pending?
- NAZIR AND Others vs Syed ISRAR AHMAD ETC:S1981 SCMR 829 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a civil suit for possession of property, which was decreed in favor of the plaintiff-respondent by the Civil Judge and subsequently upheld by the District Judge and the High Court in a regular second appeal. The petitioners challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, arguing that the property in dispute did not belong to the plaintiff by virtue of the Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) issued to him. The Supreme Court addressed the core legal question of whether the lower courts erred in their factual determination regarding the ownership of the disputed roof or 'barsati' area above a shop. The Court held that the challenge to the ownership was essentially a question of fact already thoroughly examined by the courts below, and the petitioners failed to demonstrate any misreading or omission of evidence. The Court affirmed the principle that, absent specific exclusions, the transfer of a shop includes the space from the ground to the sky. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lacking merit.
Questions settled- Does the transfer of a shop include the space from the ground to the sky unless otherwise specified?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be reopened in a petition for special leave to appeal without demonstrating misreading or omission of evidence?
- NAZIR Alias JEERA vs THE STATE1981 PLD Supreme Court 240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's second bail petition by the Lahore High Court in a case concerning Zina. Earlier, bail granted to the petitioner by an Additional Sessions Judge was cancelled on the grounds that a previous order of the High Court was suppressed from notice and that there was an uncontroverted assertion of an attempt to suborn the evidence. The core legal question was whether interference was warranted against the refusal of bail where attempts were made to mislead a court of law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that no justification existed for interference with the lower orders refusing bail, as the petitioner had attempted to mislead a court of law. The key principle laid down is that attempting to mislead a court of law or suborn evidence disentitles an accused person to the discretionary relief of bail.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be cancelled if a previous adverse order by the High Court was not brought to the notice of the bail-granting court?
- Does an attempt to suborn evidence constitute a valid ground for the refusal or cancellation of bail?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's refusal to grant bail when an accused has attempted to mislead a court of law?
- NAZIR ALI vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, THAL CANAL CIRCLE1981 PLC (C. S.) 516 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-06-16Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMED SIDDIQUI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 467 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1980-12-08Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD DIN ETC.S1981 SCMR 415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court which had set aside the murder convictions and sentences of the respondents under Section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, altering them to Section 304 Part I read with Section 149. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court correctly evaluated the evidence of motive, the place of occurrence, and the testimony of injured disinterested witnesses to conclude that the incident was a sudden fight without premeditation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court misread the evidence regarding the motive and ignored material facts, notably that the incident occurred at the dera of neutral parties and involved injured independent witnesses whose presence was natural. The Court ruled that the assailants were the aggressors and could not claim the benefit of a sudden fight or private defence. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the trial court's convictions under Section 302/149, but commuted the death sentences to transportation for life in view of the motive relating to family honour.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in discarding the prosecution's evidence of motive based on misread testimony?
- Does an attack launched at the dera of neutral and disinterested persons render the assailants the aggressors disentitling them to the plea of sudden fight?
- Whether the testimony of injured witnesses having no prior animosity carries special weight in criminal trials?
- When should a death sentence be commuted to transportation for life on the ground of motive involving family honour?
- NAZIR AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 4 OTHERS1981 CLC 1644 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-23Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs ABDUL WAHEED AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 969 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-31Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD AND Another vs GHULAM NABI AND Another1981 SCMR 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of the petitioners' second appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts ordering the eviction of the tenant petitioners from the shop in dispute on the grounds of default in rent, personal use, and reconstruction. The core legal question is whether a landlord's occupation of another rented shop in the same urban area disqualifies them from seeking the eviction of a tenant from their own shop for personal use in good faith. The Supreme Court held that the occupation of a rented shop by a landlord does not constitute a disqualification in law for seeking eviction from their own property. The Court established the principle that a landlord is not barred from seeking eviction for personal use merely because they are currently occupying a rented premises, and dismissed the petition as lacking merit.
Questions settled- Does the occupation of a rented shop by a landlord disqualify them in law from seeking the eviction of a tenant from their own shop for personal use?
- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding personal use and reconstruction can be interfered with without showing a legal or factual mistake?
- NAZIR AHMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1981 P Cr. L J 788 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-11Read full judgment →
- NAZIM HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND Other1981 SCMR 831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Chief Officer of the Municipal Committee, Jhang, challenged the termination of his services, which occurred after his two-year probationary period. The petitioner alleged that his termination was motivated by political considerations, citing minutes from a Provincial Local Government Board meeting. The core legal question was whether the termination of the petitioner's probationary service, conducted under the West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees Service Rules, 1963, was legally valid, specifically regarding the presumption of probation extension and the alleged political motivation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the termination was lawful. The Court found no evidence that political considerations influenced the Board's decision, noting that other similarly situated appointees were retained. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under the applicable rules, where an initial probation period is not explicitly extended, it is deemed extended for one year. The judgment affirms that a probationer's services may be terminated in accordance with the prescribed rules, provided the procedure is followed, and rejects claims of mala fide based on unsubstantiated allegations of political bias.
Questions settled- Does the failure to explicitly extend a probationary period result in a deemed extension of probation under the West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees Service Rules, 1963?
- Can a termination of service during probation be challenged on the basis of alleged political motivation without supporting evidence?
- Is the termination of a probationer valid if conducted in accordance with the terms of appointment and relevant service rules?
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 1105 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-23Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 1340 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-28Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs MUSTAFAUDDIN AND Another1981 P Cr. L J 931 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-04-28Read full judgment →
- NAZAR HUSSAIN vs DIRECTOR, PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, PUNJAB ETC., .1981 PLC (C. S.) 521 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
- NAZAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS,1981 PLC (C. S.) 835 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- NAZAR ALI ETC. vs HAVELI KHAN ETC.1981 CLC 1717 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-23Read full judgment →
- NAZAR ALI AND 3 Others vs MUSIITAQ AHMAD AND 19 Other1981S C M R 807 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision filed by the petitioners concerning a land dispute. The core legal question involved whether a female limited owner under customary law could execute a valid will bequeathing inherited property, and whether the petitioners could claim the property based on adverse possession or principles of testamentary succession to a one-third share. The Supreme Court held that a limited owner lacks the power to make a testamentary disposition of property that does not belong to her as a full owner, and upon her death, the property devolves upon her lawful heirs under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948, rather than vesting in her as full ownership to support notional inheritance or acceleration of succession. The court laid down the principle that an alienee or legatee from a female limited owner cannot retain any share of the property where the limited interest terminates by her death, as she never became vested with full ownership in any part of the property.
Questions settled- Whether a female limited owner can execute a valid will to bequeath property inherited from a deceased husband?
- Can a legatee claim a one-third share of property on the basis of a will executed by a limited owner whose interest terminated by death?
- Does the principle of surrender and acceleration of succession apply to a testamentary disposition by a limited owner?
- NAWAZ MASIH vs THE STATE1981 PLD F SC 272 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-05-23Read full judgment →
- NAWAZ ALI AND Another vs The STATE1981 SCMR 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for the murder of Ghulam Nabi, which was upheld by the Sind High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant discrepancies between the ocular, medical, and circumstantial evidence, and the reliability of the dying declaration and motive. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were vitiated because they ignored crucial evidence favoring the accused, including inconsistencies regarding the place of occurrence, absence of blood at the scene, medical evidence contradicting the eye-witness accounts, and questionable circumstances surrounding the dying declaration and delayed First Information Report. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, laying down the principle that courts must consider both evidence supporting the prosecution and exculpatory evidence favoring the accused.
Questions settled- Whether inconsistencies between ocular evidence and medical or circumstantial evidence are sufficient to discredit prosecution witnesses?
- Can a dying declaration furnish reliable corroboration when made after the deceased has had extensive opportunity to consult with interested eye-witness relatives?
- Whether the absence of blood at the alleged place of occurrence casts grave doubt on the prosecution's claim regarding the location of the crime?
- Does a failure by lower courts to consider evidence favoring the accused vitiate concurrent findings of guilt?
- NAWAB KHAN vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, HIGHWAY CIRCLE, MULTAN ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 744 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-11-18Read full judgment →
- NAWAB KHAN vs MESSRS UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI1981 PLC 840 · Labour Court · 1980-02-06Read full judgment →
- NAWAB BROTHERS LTD., KARACHI vs PROJECT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, SPECIAL PROJECTS, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 638 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by the plaintiff, Nawab Brothers Ltd., against the Project Director and Additional Chief Secretary of the Government of Sind, seeking to place an agreement on record, order a reference to arbitration, and obtain related relief concerning the construction of the Sind House at Islamabad. The core legal questions involved whether a valid and subsisting arbitration agreement existed between the parties, whether a subsequent agreement operated as a novation that wiped out the original contract and its arbitration clause under section 62 of the Contract Act, 1872, and whether an arbitration agreement must be signed to be legally enforceable under section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The court held that the subsequent agreement only modified certain terms rather than substituting the entire original contract, that the arbitration clause remained valid, binding, and severable, and that an arbitration agreement need not be signed provided it is in writing and its terms are ascertained and agreed upon. The court ordered the arbitration agreement to be filed and directed the reference of the disputes to arbitrators.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent agreement modifying certain terms of an original contract operates as a novation that completely extinguishes the original contract and its arbitration clause?
- Is it a mandatory requirement under section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, that an arbitration agreement must be formally signed by the parties?
- Does an arbitration clause in a building and construction contract survive the frustration, modification, or breach of the main contract?
- Whether an arbitration agreement that provides for the reference of future disputes to arbitration is rendered void as being in restraint of legal proceedings under section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872?
- NAWAB BIBI vs MUHAMMAD DIN1981 CLC 1634 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-04Read full judgment →
- NAWAB AND Another vs AMIN HAZIN AND Other1981 SCMR 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute regarding the cancellation of agricultural land allotments made to a displaced person, Bagh Ali, in District Gujranwala. The core legal question was whether a statement made by the claimant in 1964, which led to the cancellation of his allotment in village Bharoki Virkan, could be legally extended to justify the cancellation of his separate, validly obtained allotments in villages Kingarwali and Mandhir. The Supreme Court examined the official records from the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sialkot, which confirmed that the claimant had legitimately transferred his claim from Sialkot to Gujranwala and had not received any land in Sialkot. The Court held that the claimant's previous admission was confined strictly to the Bharoki Virkan allotment and could not be used to invalidate his other legitimate allotments. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order and the Deputy Commissioner's cancellation order, restoring the allotments in Kingarwali and Mandhir. The principle laid down is that admissions regarding specific property allotments cannot be broadly construed to invalidate separate, distinct allotments without evidence of impropriety in those specific transactions.
Questions settled- Can an admission regarding the cancellation of a land allotment in one specific village be extended to invalidate separate, distinct allotments in other villages?
- Does the transfer of a claim from one district to another under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 render allotments in the transferee district valid if the claimant received no land in the original district?
- Is a Settlement Commissioner justified in cancelling land allotments based on a statement that does not explicitly cover those specific allotments?
- NAWAB ALI vs UMAR DIN AND 3 OTHERS s1981 P Cr. L J 775 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-10Read full judgment →
- NAWAB ALI AND Othbrss vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1981S C M R1025 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the transfer of property units to respondent No. 2 under settlement laws. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners, who applied for transfer under Scheme No. VIII, acquired a valid claim to property units after an earlier transfer order was set aside and the case remanded. The Supreme Court held that the setting aside of the original transfer order and the reopening of the case were intended solely for the original applicants whose file was destroyed, and not to benefit subsequent applicants whose claims depended on property availability after Scheme No. I claims were satisfied. The Court affirmed that the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the transfers. The petition was dismissed in limine, laying down the principle that remand proceedings resulting from the destruction of records do not automatically open up property allotments for fresh claimants who failed to apply under the primary transfer schemes.
Questions settled- Whether subsequent applicants under Scheme No. VIII have locus standi to challenge property transfers when an earlier transfer is reopened solely due to the destruction of the original file?
- Does an order setting aside a transfer and remanding a case for fresh disposal enure to the benefit of parties who did not apply under the primary transfer scheme?
- Can a party claim property availability under Scheme No. VIII before the rights of claimants under Scheme No. I are exhausted?
- NAURANG vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 92 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-27Read full judgment →
- NAUHAT AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1313 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-04Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., KARACHI vs FOURTH SIND LABOUR1981 PLC 658 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-09Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION Co. (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI vs S. WALIUR1981 PLC 326 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-08-05Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD. vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1981 PLC 561 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional Petition was filed to challenge an order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal holding that it lacked revisional jurisdiction under Section 38(3a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 over orders passed by a Labour Court in an appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936. The core legal question was whether a Labour Court's decision under a special law other than the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 constitutes a proceeding under the Ordinance and is subject to the revisional powers of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The High Court held that under Section 35(5)(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, the Labour Court's ordinary jurisdiction includes powers assigned to it under other laws. Applying the established principle that conferring new jurisdiction on an existing court imports all ordinary incidents of that court's procedure and remedies, the Court held that adjudications under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 become proceedings under the Ordinance amenable to the Tribunal's revisional jurisdiction. The petition was allowed and the matter remanded.
Questions settled- Does the Labour Appellate Tribunal possess revisional jurisdiction under Section 38(3a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 over appellate orders of a Labour Court under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936?
- Are proceedings conducted by a Labour Court under a special statute deemed to be proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 by virtue of Section 35(5)(d)?
- Does conferring additional jurisdiction on an established court implicitly attach all ordinary procedural incidents including appeal and revision?
- NASIR UD DIN vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1981 SCMR 709 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This leave petition arises from the High Court's order in ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner regarding residential premises on the ground of bona fide personal requirement, as the respondent was facing vacation of his current Government accommodation. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, but the Additional District Judge reversed the decision, holding the requirement was not bona fide and was based on procured notices. The High Court restored the Rent Controller's order, finding the appellate court's decision was based on speculation rather than concrete evidence. The Supreme Court heard the petitioner's arguments regarding alleged mala fides and demands for higher rent, and held that statutory safeguards exist allowing the tenant to apply for restoration of possession and prosecution if the landlord fails to occupy the premises after vacation. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, granting the petitioner three months to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the appellate court's finding regarding bona fide personal requirement?
- What is the remedy available to a tenant if a landlord fails to occupy the premises after obtaining ejectment on the ground of personal requirement?
- NASIR JAVAID AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 920 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
- NASIR ALI vs Alunsht MERAR KHAN1981 PLD Supreme Court 607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the High Court's refusal to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant for the offence of cheating under Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dishonour of a post-dated cheque. The core legal question was whether the issuance of a post-dated cheque that is subsequently dishonoured inherently constitutes a criminal offence or remains a civil matter, and whether such proceedings should be quashed at the initial stage. The Supreme Court held that the law cannot be laid down so broadly as to hold that a post-dated cheque never gives rise to a criminal offence. The Court determined that the drawer's intention and knowledge are questions of fact to be ascertained through evidence at trial, not merely from the complaint. The key principle laid down is that where a complaint alleges fraudulent and dishonest inducement, quashment of proceedings at an early stage is inappropriate, as the determination of guilt depends on the totality of circumstances revealed during trial. The Court further noted the availability of relief under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of a post-dated cheque that is subsequently dishonoured automatically constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Should criminal proceedings be quashed at the initial stage when the complaint alleges fraudulent and dishonest inducement?
- Is the intention of the drawer of a post-dated cheque a question of fact to be determined at trial?
- NASIR ALI M1RZA vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH ADDITIONAL CEIIEF1981 PLC (C. S.) 479 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-12-17Read full judgment →
- NASIR AHMAD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1981 P Cr. L J 594 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
- NASEER vs Tim STATE1981 PLD Karachi 41 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-08Read full judgment →
- NASEER ALI--Appellant vs SARWAR ALI HAIDER1981 CLC 118 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-14Read full judgment →
- NASEER ALI vs SARWAR ALI HAIDERI, ADVOCATE1981 CLC 118 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-14Read full judgment →
- NASEER AHMAD vs THE STATE---1981 P Cr. L J 1178 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-07Read full judgment →
- NASEEM SHAFI AND Another vs TANVIR AFFANDI AND 13 Other1981S C M R 313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside an order dismissing a suit in default after a preliminary decree had already been passed. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the jurisdiction to dismiss a suit for default once a preliminary decree has been issued, and whether the High Court could rectify such an error in revision. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that a suit cannot be dismissed for default after the passing of a preliminary decree. The Court reasoned that once a preliminary decree is passed, the litigation continues, and an order of dismissal in default is legally incompetent. Furthermore, the Court upheld the High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction to correct the trial court's failure to exercise its own jurisdiction, emphasizing the principle that a litigant should not suffer due to the court's mistake. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, as the High Court's approach was found to be unexceptionable.
Questions settled- Can a trial court dismiss a suit for default after a preliminary decree has been passed?
- Is the High Court empowered to set aside an order of dismissal in default in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction?
- Does a litigant suffer prejudice due to a court's error in dismissing a suit in default after a preliminary decree?
- NASEEM KHAN vs MESSRS GLOBE TEXTILE MILLS LTD. ,1981 PLC 773 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-10-28Read full judgment →
- NAJAM UD DIN vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND Othrss1981 SCMR 540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a property dispute regarding the demarcation of evacuee property, specifically House No. 150 in Chiniot, which the petitioner, Najam-ud-Din, purchased at a government auction. Following the purchase and issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.), disputes arose regarding the physical boundaries of the property, as the occupant, Ghulam Muhammad, had merged the house with an adjoining property. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner conducted a demarcation, which was subsequently challenged in appeal and revision proceedings. The petitioner eventually filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed due to significant, unexplained delay in refiling the petition after it was returned with objections. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal, agreeing that the delay in refiling was inexcusable. Furthermore, the Court held that the demarcation of property boundaries constitutes a question of fact, which is generally not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court noted the petitioner's own indolence in failing to object while the properties were being demolished and rebuilt, thereby precluding relief.
Questions settled- Is the demarcation of property boundaries considered a question of fact?
- Can a writ petition be dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay in refiling after the removal of objections?
- Does a petitioner's failure to object to the demolition and reconstruction of property constitute laches or indolence?
- NAJAM MOIN vs DR. RIAZ UD DIN AHMAD, ETC.S1981 SCMR 789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a second appeal upholding the eviction of the petitioner from a rented shop. The core legal question concerned whether a concurrent finding of fact regarding the landlord's personal requirement for the disputed shop could be vitiated by a separate, earlier decision where the landlord's eviction claim regarding a different shop was disallowed. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by three lower forums regarding the bona fide personal requirement of the landlord for his son remained a valid factual determination, and the outcome of litigation concerning a different property did not legally bar or invalidate the proven bona fide requirement in the present case. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact regarding personal requirement must be evaluated on the specific evidence of each case, and concurrent factual determinations by lower courts will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court merely because a separate eviction proceeding concerning another property had a different outcome.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Does the failure of an eviction petition regarding one property automatically render a landlord's claim for personal requirement in respect of another property not bona fide?