Latest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.
- Miss SADAQAT HAMID vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND Other1981 SCMR 1034 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the dismissal of a college lecturer by the Education Secretary of the Punjab Government for alleged misconduct. The appellant challenged the removal, primarily contending that the show-cause notice provided was vague and lacked necessary particulars, thereby prejudicing her defense. Additionally, she argued that the Education Secretary lacked the legal authority to dismiss her, asserting that such power resided solely with the Governor. The Supreme Court held that the show-cause notice was sufficient in the circumstances, as the nature of the allegations necessitated discretion, and the appellant had been afforded a personal hearing where she failed to raise grievances regarding the notice's clarity. Regarding the authority to dismiss, the Court ruled that under the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 1974, the Education Secretary, as the official head of the department, possessed the requisite authority to take disciplinary action. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the procedural requirements of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, had been satisfied and that the administrative delegation of power was valid.
Questions settled- Whether a show-cause notice is rendered invalid if it lacks specific particulars in cases involving sensitive allegations?
- Does the Education Secretary have the authority to dismiss a Grade 17 lecturer under the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 1974?
- Is a personal hearing sufficient to cure alleged vagueness in a show-cause notice?
- Miss RAZIA SULTANA vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1981 SCMR 715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a teacher appointed for a fixed term in a privately managed school, sought leave to appeal against the Service Tribunal's decision, which denied her claim to be treated as a regular civil servant following the government's takeover of the institution under Martial Law Regulation 118. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was entitled to absorption as a civil servant under the said Regulation and whether her continued service, despite the expiry of her initial appointment, created a legal right to regular employment or compensation. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner's appointment was temporary and for a fixed period, and had not been renewed by a competent authority, she did not qualify for absorption under Martial Law Regulation 118. The Court further held that the doctrine of estoppel did not apply, as no competent authority had authorized her continuation. The petition was dismissed, with the Court noting that while no question of law of public importance existed to justify leave to appeal, the petitioner could seek relief from the government on compassionate grounds for services rendered.
Questions settled- Does a fixed-term appointment in a private institution, subsequently taken over by the government, automatically entitle an employee to absorption as a civil servant under Martial Law Regulation 118?
- Can the doctrine of estoppel be invoked against the government based on the unauthorized continuation of service by an employee whose fixed-term contract has expired?
- Is a question of fact regarding the continuation of employment sufficient to justify leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Miss IRSHAD PAR VEEN vs DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER ETC.1981 PLC (C. S.) 613 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-05-23Read full judgment →
- Miss HUMAIRA ZAHID vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHIKARPUR AND 4 OTHERS1981 CLC 909 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-28Read full judgment →
- Miss CHRISTINE BRASS vs DR. JAVED IQBAL1981 PLD Peshawar 110 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Article 199(1)(b)(i) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, read with section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was filed by a Canadian Christian mother seeking the custody of her four minor children from their Pakistani Muslim father, relying on a divorce and custody decree issued by a Superior Court in the State of Washington, U.S.A. The core legal question was whether a foreign custody judgment can be directly enforced through habeas corpus proceedings in Pakistan without a regular civil suit, and whether such foreign orders override the welfare of the minors and the personal law of the father. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a foreign custody judgment is not directly executable as a decree in Pakistan without being made the basis of a domestic civil suit, that custody orders are by nature not final, and that the paramount consideration in child custody matters is the welfare of the minors, who are residing in Pakistan with their natural Muslim guardian. The key principle laid down is that foreign custody orders are not strictly binding or directly enforceable in Pakistani constitutional jurisdiction, and the welfare of the child coupled with the father's right under personal law to have the children brought up in the Muslim faith overrides foreign judicial determinations.
Questions settled- Whether a foreign judgment regarding child custody can be directly enforced through a habeas corpus petition in Pakistan without instituting a civil suit?
- Does a foreign custody order possess finality comparable to other civil judgments under private international law?
- Whether the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in determining child custody disputes involving foreign parents and foreign judgments?
- Can a Muslim father's right to the natural guardianship and religious upbringing of his minor children be superseded by a foreign court's custody decree when the children reside in Pakistan?
- MISKEEN AND Others vs COMMISSIONER, C. D. A., ISLAMABAD1981 SCMR 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition filed by landowners challenging the compensation awarded for land acquired by the Capital Development Authority (C.D.A.) in the revenue estate of Thatta Gujran. The core legal question was whether the Commissioner, C.D.A., and subsequently the High Court, erred by failing to base the compensation rates on a 1964 award concerning an adjoining village (Chahan), instead relying on a 1972 award for the same village. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision was unexceptionable. The Court reasoned that the petitioners had specifically requested the Commissioner to apply the rates from the 1972 award, and the Commissioner had granted that request. Consequently, the petitioners could not later fault the Commissioner for failing to consider the 1964 award, which was neither produced nor relied upon during the appellate proceedings. The principle laid down is that a party cannot introduce new arguments or factual bases in a writ petition that were not raised or substantiated before the lower statutory functionaries.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge an administrative order in a writ petition based on evidence or arguments not presented before the original statutory authority?
- Is a High Court justified in refusing to consider a new plea in writ jurisdiction that was not raised before the lower appellate authority?
- Mirzajawad BEG vs THE STATE1981 SCMR 341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant was prosecuted and convicted under section 16 of the Prevention of Anti-National Activities Act 1974 and section 123-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for advocating the creation of an autonomous Metropolitan Government for Karachi through various pamphlets. The Special Court and the High Court upheld his conviction, concluding that his advocacy of self-determination and local autonomy was a camouflage for demanding secession. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined the interpretation of the documents and the constitutional framework regarding local government. The core legal question was whether the appellant's writings and political advocacy amounted to advocating secession or disrupting the territorial integrity of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that the documents, when read as a whole and given their plain meaning, explicitly stated that Karachi would remain an integral part of the Province of Sind and Pakistan, and that the proposed metropolitan government constituted a form of partial self-government rather than secession. The Court established that autonomy and secession are mutually exclusive, and criminal intent cannot be inferred through conjecture or by dismissing explicit controlling provisions as mere camouflage. The appeal was accepted, and the convictions and sentences were set aside.
Questions settled- Whether the demand for an autonomous metropolitan government for a city within a province amounts to secession or disruption of the territorial integrity of Pakistan?
- How should political and theoretical documents be interpreted when determining criminal liability for sedition or anti-national activities?
- Can criminal intent be inferred by treating explicit disclaimers of secession within published literature as a camouflage without supporting evidence?
- Does advocacy for local self-government and administrative decentralization fall within the permissible limits of freedom of expression under the law?
- Mirza ZAHID BEG vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 954 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-25Read full judgment →
- Mirza SHUJAT HUSSAIN vs MESSRS SUNRISE CHEMICAL PRODUCE ETC.1981 PLC 722 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-14Read full judgment →
- Mirza NASEEM BAIG vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND Another1981 SCMR 315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the High Court quashing criminal proceedings initiated against the first respondent under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the first respondent took poultry items worth Rs. 1,700 for a temporary display and failed to return them or pay their value despite written promises. The trial Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons, but the High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground that the case was false and concocted based on the respondent's credentials, without examining the complaint itself. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court's order was legally maintainable. The Court held that while quashment is permissible if proceedings are an abuse of process or brought for improper motives, the High Court cannot declare a case false solely based on the accused's credentials without examining the complaint allegations. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order set aside, and the case remanded for trial.
Questions settled- Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings under Section 561-A CrPC solely based on the accused's credentials without examining the complaint allegations?
- What principles govern the exercise of High Court powers under Section 561-A CrPC to quash a criminal complaint?
- Whether an order quashing proceedings is legally maintainable if based on premature conclusions without supporting material on record?
- Mirza MOAZAM BAIG ETC. vs SARDAR ALI ETC.S1981 SCMR 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a Letters Patent appeal, which in turn upheld the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the transfer of an evacuee Ahata. The core legal question concerned whether the failure to provide a mandatory hearing to the auction purchaser under section 20(5) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 vitiated the Settlement Commissioner's order of remand, and whether property could be auctioned without disposing of pending transfer applications based on possession and construction. The Supreme Court held that while the lack of a hearing was a procedural irregularity, it was immaterial in the circumstances of the case because the respondents had pending transfer applications that required lawful disposal before any auction could validly take place. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that procedural lapses do not warrant interference where the ultimate outcome would remain unchanged and statutory prerequisites for auction were unmet.
Questions settled- Does the failure to afford a mandatory hearing under section 20(5) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 invalidate an order of remand where the final outcome would not have been different?
- Can an evacuee property be validly put to auction without disposing of a pending transfer application filed by occupants who have raised constructions thereon?
- Whether an immaterial procedural irregularity by a Settlement Commissioner warrants interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Mirza GHULAM HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR1981 CLC 1689 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-24Read full judgment →
- Mirza FAROOQ BEG vs MUHAMMAD ARIF1981 PLD Karachi 67 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the order of the VIII Additional District Judge, Karachi, which reversed the Rent Controller's decision and ordered the appellant's eviction from two shops. The respondent-landlord had sought ejectment on grounds of breach of tenancy conditions, causing obstruction, and personal and bona fide use. During the pendency of the proceedings, the landlord obtained possession of two other shops in the same building. The core legal question concerned the effect of obtaining alternate premises during pending ejectment proceedings under the second proviso to section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Court held that acquiring another premises during pendency does not render the pending application non-maintainable or infructuous, but rather places an additional burden on the landlord to prove that the newly vacated premises are unsuitable for his needs. The Court further held that the first appellate court misread the evidence regarding registration certificates and improperly dismissed the landlord's full-time employment status. The appeal was accepted, setting aside the appellate authority's order and restoring the Rent Controller's dismissal of the ejectment application.
Questions settled- Does an ejectment application on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement become non-maintainable or infructuous if the landlord obtains possession of another premises of the same class during the pendency of the proceedings?
- What is the legal effect under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, when a landlord obtains possession of alternate premises during the pendency of an ejectment petition?
- Can an appellate court reverse a finding of fact of the trial court without demonstrating a logical basis or when based on a misreading of evidence?
- Does a landlord's status as a full-time employee constitute a relevant circumstance in assessing the bona fides of a personal requirement for business premises?
- Mirza ABDUL HAMEED vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 2 OTHERS s1981 CLC 822 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-27Read full judgment →
- MIRO AND Others vs The STATE1981 SCMR 1229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for the murder of the deceased, Ismail. The appellants challenged the High Court's judgment, contending that the prosecution's case was based on improbable evidence and that the eye-witnesses, being related to the deceased, were unreliable and required independent corroboration. The core legal question was whether the testimony of interested witnesses could be accepted without corroboration and whether alleged improbabilities in the prosecution's narrative necessitated acquittal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the guilt of the appellants was established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that the mere fact that witnesses are related or partisan does not render their testimony inherently unreliable. The reliability of such witnesses depends on the circumstances of each case, and if their testimony is found truthful, it may be accepted without independent corroboration. The Court further held that speculative arguments regarding the assailants' knowledge of the victim's movements, unsupported by evidence, do not invalidate credible ocular testimony. The convictions were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the fact that prosecution witnesses are related to the deceased render their testimony ipso facto unreliable?
- Is independent corroboration a universal requirement for the testimony of interested or partisan witnesses?
- Can an appellate court discard credible ocular testimony based on speculative arguments regarding the improbability of the incident?
- MIRAJ DIN vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
- MIRAJ DIN vs SHUJAUDDIN AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1063 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-18Read full judgment →
- Mir TARIQ HUSSAIN vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1981 CLC 41 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-03Read full judgment →
- MIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1981 PLD Karachi 314 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-04Read full judgment →
- MIR MUHAMMAD vs KARACHI PIPE LINES LTD.,1981 PLC 753 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-10-05Read full judgment →
- Mir MUHAMMAD ALI vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY AND 2 of as1981 CLC 627 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
- MIR KHAN vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 511 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-02Read full judgment →
- MIR HAJI KHAN And 11 Other vs Mir AIJAZ ALI AND 2 Other1981 PLD Supreme Court 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal through special leave arises from a declaratory suit concerning agricultural land in District Hyderabad, originally part of a Jagir. The plaintiffs-respondents claimed ownership based on inheritance of perpetual mukhadimi (zamindari) rights from their predecessors, asserting recognition of these rights prior to 1892 and alternatively pleading adverse possession. The defendants-appellants contested the claim, maintaining that the Jagir grant conferred full proprietary rights in the soil, that the plaintiffs held no such hereditary rights, and that the plaintiffs' possession was merely that of lessees. The trial court dismissed the suit. The first appellate court and the High Court in second appeal ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, relying partly on an 1892 survey report. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Sanad granting the Jagir in question conferred full proprietary rights in the soil, that the mukhadimi occupants held a status no higher than tenants liable to ejectment under established rules rather than permanent owners, and that the plaintiffs failed to establish inheritance or adverse possession. The appeal was allowed, and the trial court's dismissal of the suit was restored.
Questions settled- Whether a Jagir grant and its accompanying Sanad confer proprietary rights in the soil upon the Jagirdar or merely the right to collect land revenue?
- What is the legal status and tenure of a Mukhadim or Zamindar occupying land within a Jagir under the historical land rules of Sind?
- Does the abandonment of an objection regarding the form of a suit under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 amount to an admission of ownership or adverse possession by the defendant?
- Can revenue survey and inquiry reports override the clear terms of a historical Sanad and the established documentary evidence regarding land ownership?
- Mian SOHAIL IFTIKHAR AND ANOTHER vs THE DAILY NAWAIWAQT, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 474 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mian SAFDAR KHAN AND 3 Omitss vs THS STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 113 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
- MIAN SADAQAT HAMEED vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND Other1981 SCMR 1227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court upon a review petition seeking review of the Court's earlier judgment dated 25th March 1981, which had dismissed the petitioner's civil appeal. The core legal question raised was whether a judgment announced on 25th March 1981 was invalid because two members of the bench subsequently ceased to hold office upon not taking the oath under Article 17 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. The Court held that a judge continues to hold office and perform judicial functions until the expiration of the time determined by the President for taking the oath. Since the judgment in question was delivered before the expiry of the time limit fixed for taking the oath, the bench was fully competent to announce it. The review petition was accordingly dismissed, laying down the principle that judicial acts performed by judges prior to the expiry of the deadline for taking a new oath under a constitutional order remain valid and lawful.
Questions settled- Whether a judge of the Supreme Court can continue to perform judicial functions until the expiry of the time determined for taking an oath under the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981?
- Does the failure of certain judges to take the oath under the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 invalidate judgments delivered by them prior to the expiration of the prescribed time limit?
- MIAN RASHAD AHMED vs A. K. GOVERNMENT AND 2 OTHERS ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 544 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1981-07-13Read full judgment →
- Mian MUZAFFARUDDIN vs THE COMMERCE BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 665 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-01Read full judgment →
- Mian MUHAMMAD YUNUS vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 1154 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- Mian HUSSAIN MUHAMMAD vs COL. MUHAMMAD ILYAS AND 7 Other1981 SCMR 1028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his land allotment by the Deputy Commissioner, Muzaffargarh, and the subsequent transfer of possession and crops to respondent 1. While a writ petition regarding the allotment cancellation was pending, the petitioner sought interim relief against dispossession, which the High Court declined, suggesting he seek alternative remedies. Following the rejection of his request by the Deputy Commissioner and the dismissal of a subsequent writ petition by the High Court due to laches and lack of merit, the petitioner sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that the impugned order regarding the transfer of land on superdari was passed within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities, and no illegality in the exercise of that discretion was demonstrated. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for constitutional interference. The petition was dismissed in limine, with the Court noting that the petitioner remained free to pursue any legal remedies available under the law in the pending High Court proceedings.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction by Revenue Authorities absent a showing of illegality?
- Does a writ petition suffer from laches if filed more than one year after the final appellate order?
- Mian GHULAM ALI vs ALI NAWAZ KHAN1981 CLC 1147 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-22Read full judgment →
- Mian AMANUL MULK vs N. W. F. P. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY1981 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the retirement of a civil servant under the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants Act 1973, raising the issue of whether the High Court retains jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate matters concerning the terms and conditions of civil servants, notwithstanding the establishment of Service Tribunals under Article 212. The petitioner argued that the High Court could intervene where orders were allegedly void, mala fide, or coram non judice. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Article 212 and the relevant Service Tribunals Acts create an exclusive jurisdiction for Service Tribunals over all matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants. This ouster of jurisdiction is absolute, applying even to orders alleged to be void or mala fide. The High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 is excluded whenever a competent Service Tribunal exists, as the Tribunal functions as an appellate body with broad powers to examine both law and fact. The High Court may only intervene in limited instances, such as where the impugned order is not passed by a departmental authority.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants where a Service Tribunal has been established under Article 212?
- Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction over an order passed by a departmental authority if the order is alleged to be void, mala fide, or coram non judice?
- Does the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal extend to examining the propriety of an order of retirement passed by a departmental authority?
- What are the specific instances where the High Court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate matters concerning civil servants despite the establishment of Service Tribunals?
- MESSRS YOUNEK ELECTRIC Co. vs MUHAMMAD ABDUL HAYI KHAN1981 SCMR 181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the eviction of a tenant from a shop. The respondent-landlord sought eviction on the grounds of personal requirement for his unemployed son to run a business. The tenant contested the eviction, alleging that the landlord's claim was not in good faith and was motivated by a desire for higher rent. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the eviction application, but the District Court allowed the landlord's appeal, a decision subsequently upheld by the Lahore High Court in second appeal. The Supreme Court examined whether the landlord had established the bona fides of his requirement. The Court held that the landlord's desire to establish his unemployed son in business was reasonable and probable. Furthermore, the Court determined that the findings of the lower appellate courts were based on the appreciation of evidence and concurrent findings of fact. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with these findings, holding that no case for special leave was made out, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord's claim for personal requirement of a shop for his unemployed son constitutes a bona fide need?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fides of a landlord's personal requirement?
- Does the existence of a dispute over rent quantum automatically negate the bona fides of a landlord's claim for personal use of a property?
- MESSRS USMAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND ANOTHER ,1981 PLC 426 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-30Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ULERICHT'S (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI vs Mirza RAIS AHMAD BEG AND 2 OTHERS1981 PLC 630 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- MESSRS TAR MUHAMMAD JANOO & Co. vs TAHERALI AND Other1981 SCMR 93 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arose from an ejectment application filed by the respondent-landlords against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of default in the payment of rent for an eleven-month period. The tenant admitted non-payment but contended that an oral agreement existed allowing them to credit the rent to the landlords' account in the tenant's books, to be paid in lump sums at irregular intervals. The tenant further argued that the landlords' past acceptance of rent at irregular intervals established a practice of irregular payment. The Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court all rejected this plea, finding that default was established. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that where premises are rented on a monthly basis, rent is due monthly. A landlord's acceptance of delayed rent at irregular intervals due to indulgence or convenience does not establish a binding practice of irregular payment, nor does it absolve the tenant of the statutory duty to pay or tender rent regularly.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's acceptance of rent at irregular intervals establish a binding practice that absolves the tenant from the duty of paying rent monthly?
- Can a tenant plead that they are not in default because they credited the rent to the landlord's account in their own books under an alleged oral arrangement?
- What is the statutory timeframe within which a tenant must pay or tender rent to avoid being declared a defaulter when there is no written agreement?
- MESSRS SIMMA FABRICS LTD., GUJRANWALA vs AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT AND 3 OTHERS1981 PLC 498 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, to entertain a claim filed by a legal adviser against his former employer. The petitioner, a company, had appointed the respondent as a legal adviser on a retainership basis, tasked with handling labour cases and providing legal counsel. Following the termination of this arrangement, the respondent sought recovery of unpaid fees and salary before the Authority. The core legal question was whether a legal adviser engaged on a retainership basis qualifies as a 'worker' under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, thereby bringing the dispute within the Authority's jurisdiction. The Court examined the nature of the relationship and the definition of 'worker' under the relevant statute. The Court held that the respondent, being a legal adviser retained for professional services rather than an employee performing manual or clerical labour, did not fall within the statutory definition of a worker. Consequently, the Authority lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. The petition was allowed, establishing that professional retainers do not constitute workers under the Act.
Questions settled- Does a legal adviser engaged on a retainership basis qualify as a 'worker' under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
- Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for professional fees by a legal adviser?
- Is a person hired for professional legal services considered an employee for the purposes of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
- MESSRS SHEIKH HUSSAIN BUX & Co. vs MESSRS ZAIB TUN TEXTILE MILLS LTD.1981 PLD Karachi 28 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns objections filed against an arbitration award regarding a cotton transaction. The core legal questions were whether the objections were filed within the statutory limitation period and whether a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties, given the absence of a formal written contract and the lack of proof regarding the broker's authority. The Court held that the objections were time-barred, as the evidence supported the earlier receipt of the notice. Notwithstanding the limitation issue, the Court refused to make the award a rule of the Court, finding it legally flawed. Specifically, the umpire acted beyond his competence by awarding interest on interest, which constitutes damages. Furthermore, the Court established that membership in an association does not automatically imply an arbitration agreement absent a contract expressly subject to the association's bye-laws. Additionally, the Court affirmed that under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940, it retains the discretion to set aside or remit an award even if objections are filed out of time, particularly where the existence of an arbitration agreement is doubtful or unproven.
Questions settled- Can an arbitration agreement be inferred solely from membership in a trade association?
- Is an arbitrator competent to award interest on the amount of damages?
- Does the Court have the discretion to set aside an arbitration award even if objections are filed after the limitation period?
- Does a sold note signed by a broker constitute a valid arbitration agreement without proof of the broker's authority to act for both parties?
- Messrs SHAFT CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1981 PLD Karachi 730 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from objections filed by the plaintiff against an arbitration award rendered by an Umpire in a contract dispute concerning the supply of Bren Gun Chests. The defendant had cancelled the contract due to non-delivery and asserted a counter-claim for price difference damages. The two nominated arbitrators disagreed, leading to a reference to the Umpire, who awarded damages to the defendant. The plaintiff challenged the award on the grounds that the counter-claim was raised after the initial reference and that the objections were within time. The High Court of Sindh addressed the preliminary issue of limitation under Article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908, holding that the statutory notice of filing an award under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940 does not strictly require a formal written notice; constructive or informal notice is sufficient to trigger the limitation period. On the merits, the Court held that in the absence of a restrictive written reference, arbitrators are competent to entertain counter-claims to resolve the entire dispute expeditiously. The objections were dismissed, and the award was made a rule of the court.
Questions settled- Does the notice of filing an award under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940 require a formal written notice to start the limitation period under Article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a party who has constructive knowledge of the filing of an arbitration award in court demand fresh statutory notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Are arbitrators competent to entertain and adjudicate upon a counter-claim raised after the initial reference in the absence of a specific written reference restricting their scope?
- MESSRS SERVICE INDUSTRIES LTD., LAHORE vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LABOUR1981 PLC 477 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-21Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SANDOZ (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI vs BAKHTRA WAN SAEED BUTT AND ANOTHER1981 PLC 818 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-08-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs SABIR'silk MILLS LTD. AND Another vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD AMIN HAIDER1981 SCMR 938 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment order against tenants (petitioners) by the Rent Controller, which was upheld by the Lahore High Court. The respondent-landlord sought eviction based on default in rent payment, unauthorized structural alterations, misuse of the premises, and bona fide personal need. The petitioners contested the respondent's status as landlord, alleging failure to serve notice under Section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, and argued that a new tenancy agreement existed, preventing eviction. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts erred in their concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's status, the validity of the notice, and the alleged new agreement. The Court held that the findings of fact were supported by the material on record and could not be interfered with. It affirmed that the respondent was the valid landlord, the notice requirements were met, and the petitioners' unilateral acts did not create a binding new agreement. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the eviction order while granting the tenants two months to vacate.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller adjudicate upon the validity of a registered award or title document?
- Do concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding tenancy disputes warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can a tenant unilaterally create a binding tenancy agreement that overrides the landlord's right to seek eviction?
- MESSRS S. M. RAHMAN & Co. vs MOTABAR AND Other1981 PLD Supreme Court 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan which accepted a revision petition and restored the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The respondents, coal mine workmen, claimed unpaid wages, which led to arbitration and a settlement wherein the appellant and the firm accepted liability. Upon non-payment, the workmen filed an application under section 15 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (referred to in context as the Payment of Wages Act), which was allowed. The District Court allowed the employer's appeal holding the claim time-barred and the appellant not liable, but the High Court set this aside in revision. The core legal question was whether an appellate order of the District Court under the Payment of Wages Act is subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Supreme Court held that the District Court, when hearing an appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, acts as one of the ordinary courts of the country and is subordinate to the High Court, making its appellate orders amenable to revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate order passed by the District Court under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act is subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code?
- Is the District Court hearing an appeal under the Payment of Wages Act regarded as a court subordinate to the High Court?
- Does the finality attached to the order of the Authority under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act bar the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court against the appellate order of the District Court?
- MESSRS REHMAN WEAVING FACTORY (REGD.), BAHAWALNAGAR AND MESSRS REHMAN WEAVING FACTROY (REGD.), BAHAWALNAGAR vs INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LAHORE Link 11981 PLD SC 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals arose from a Lahore High Court judgment setting aside an ex parte decree. The core legal question concerned the applicability of Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 to applications for setting aside ex parte decrees, specifically whether the limitation period of thirty days applies to all such decrees or only those passed at the first hearing. The Supreme Court held that Article 164 applies strictly to ex parte decrees passed at the first hearing where the initial summons was served. For decrees passed on adjourned hearings under Order XVII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Article 164 is inapplicable; instead, the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies, allowing a three-year limitation period. The Court affirmed that the term "summons" in Article 164 refers exclusively to the initial summons for the first hearing. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the High Court correctly allowed the applications for setting aside the ex parte decree as they were filed within the applicable legal framework, ensuring procedural fairness for parties regarding adjourned hearing dates.
Questions settled- Does the term "summons" in Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 refer to the initial summons for the first hearing or subsequent notices for adjourned hearings?
- Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed on an adjourned hearing?
- Can a court proceed ex parte against a defendant on an adjourned hearing without ensuring the defendant has notice of that specific date?
- Is Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to an application for setting aside an ex parte decree under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- MESSRS RAZZAK INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI vs AHMAD NABI ,1981 PLC 502 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-11Read full judgment →
- MESSRS PEOPLES STEEL MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs HAFIZUDDIN AND 7 Otxaxs1981 PLD Karachi 739 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from an order striking off the tenant's defence under Section 13(6) of the Sind Rent Restriction Ordinance for failing to comply with a tentative rent order. The appellant-tenant had deposited cheques for the monthly rent with the Nazir of the Court before the stipulated dates. However, due to summer vacations, the Nazir delayed presenting the cheques to the bank for about four weeks, by which time the tenant had withdrawn substantial funds for commercial purposes, leading to the cheques being dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The tenant argued that presenting a cheque constitutes a valid tender and that the liability shifted to the Nazir for the delay. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while a cheque may be a valid conditional tender, its validity is defeated upon dishonour. The court ruled that it is the drawer's duty to maintain sufficient funds to meet the cheque at any point within its validity period, and the subsequent dishonour constitutes a default under the rent laws.
Questions settled- Does the presentation of a cheque in court constitute a valid tender of rent if the cheque is subsequently dishonoured due to insufficient funds?
- Is a tenant absolved of default if the Nazir of the court delays the presentation of a rent cheque to the bank?
- Is a drawer of a cheque obligated to maintain sufficient funds in their bank account throughout the validity period of the cheque to ensure it is honoured upon presentation?
- MESSRS PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD. vs STATE LIFE INSURANCE1981 PLC 244 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-15Read full judgment →
- MESSRS PAKISATN GARMENTS INDUSTRIES, KARACHI No. IV AND 3 OTHERS vs SIND LABOUR COURT1981 PLC 827 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-08-03Read full judgment →
- MESSRS OLYMPIA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs SYED SHAH ,1981 PLC 685 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-12-02Read full judgment →
- MESSRS OLYMPIA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs ABDUL1981 PLC 214 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
- MESSRS NAWAB & Co., KARACHI vs RUSTAM AND 2 OTHERS1981 PLC 687 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
- MESSRS MUSHTAQ TEXTILE MILLS, HYDERABAD vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND ANOTHER1981 PLC 597 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-22Read full judgment →
- MESSRS MUSHTAQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., HYDERABAD vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF,1981 PLC 860 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-09-20Read full judgment →
- MESSRS MUHAMMAD SHAFI TANNERIES vs MAJEEDULLAH1981 PLC 198 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-04-20Read full judgment →
- MESSRS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL & Bros. vs Malik MUHAMMAD TAHIR Etc.1981 SCMR 139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner-firm occupied a plot of land under a lease agreement with the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala, for over fifteen years. Upon discovering the land was government property, the petitioner ceased lease renewals. Following a notice to vacate, the petitioner faced criminal proceedings under Section 448 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and subsequent eviction by the police. The petitioner challenged the police's interference with possession through a writ petition, which the Lahore High Court dismissed in limine. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter. The Court held that the petitioner, having entered into possession as a tenant of the police and having paid rent for fifteen years, was estopped from challenging the landlord's title. Applying the principle of tenant estoppel, the Court affirmed that the petitioner could not refute the respondent's title while remaining in possession of the property. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, upholding the High Court's decision.
Questions settled- Is a tenant estopped from challenging the title of their landlord while remaining in possession of the property?
- Does a tenant who has paid rent for fifteen years have the legal standing to refute the title of the lessor?
- MESSRS MUHAMMAD ALI & Co. KARACHI vs ABDUL MAJID1981 PLC 306 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-09-29Read full judgment →
- MESSRS MOOSA OOMER & Co. LTD_ vs MESSRS HAJI E. DOSSA & SONS AND Another1981 SCMR 1211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a contractual dispute where the appellant repudiated a contract for the purchase of 5,000 maunds of cotton seeds by refusing delivery of a portion of the goods. Following the breach, the respondents sold the remaining goods in the market, incurring a financial loss based on the difference between the contract price and the market price on the date of resale. The dispute was referred to arbitration, resulting in an award in favor of the respondents. After a series of appellate proceedings, the matter reached the Supreme Court via a petition for special leave to appeal. The core legal question concerned the correct methodology for calculating damages in cases of breach of contract, specifically whether the market price on the date of breach or the actual resale price should determine the quantum of damages. The Supreme Court, noting the reasonableness of the damages awarded and the significant passage of time since payment, declined to adjudicate the legal question, recalled the leave to appeal, and dismissed the appeal, holding that the circumstances did not warrant further examination.
Questions settled- Is the market price on the date of breach the sole determinant for calculating damages in a contract for the sale of goods?
- Can a court decline to adjudicate a legal question regarding the calculation of damages if the damages awarded are reasonable and payment was made long ago?
- MESSRS MIAN MUHAMMAD SHARIF & Co. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI1981 SCMR 676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from income tax assessment proceedings concerning the petitioner, a registered firm in the construction business. For the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, the petitioner claimed statutory depreciation on its machinery and equipment under Section 10 of the Income-tax Act 1922. The Income-tax Officer rejected the returns, raised the assessed profits, and disallowed the claimed depreciation deductions. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeals, and the Lahore High Court subsequently answered references under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act 1922 against the petitioner by relying on English precedents. The petitioner contended that English income tax provisions were not in pari materia with Pakistani law and that Sections 10(2)(v) and 10(2)(xvi) of the Income-tax Act 1922 were misread by the High Court. Finding that these contentions required examination and were supported by judicial precedent, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the applicability of English authorities and the proper interpretation of the relevant statutory depreciation provisions.
Questions settled- Are English income tax precedents applicable when interpreting depreciation provisions under the Income-tax Act 1922 where statutory provisions are not in pari materia?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted to examine the interpretation of Sections 10(2)(v) and 10(2)(xvi) of the Income-tax Act 1922 regarding claims for depreciation?
- MESSRS MAQBOOL CO. LTD. vs MUHAMMAD SHAH, .1981 PLC 758 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-10-06Read full judgment →
- MESSRS KARACHI PIPE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs Mirra JAN BEG1981 PLC 849 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
- MESSRS KARACHI PIPE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES' UNION, .(1981 PLC 161 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
- MESSRS KARACHI PIPE MILLS LTD. vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1981 PLC 19 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-04-05Read full judgment →
- MESSRS JUPITER GENERAL INDUSTRIES vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1981 PLC 97 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-12Read full judgment →
- MESSRS JAMIA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD. vs FATEHUL QADEER, .(1981 PLC 551 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-25Read full judgment →
- MESSRS INTER-CONSULTANT CORPORATION, KARACHI vs Syed AKHTAR RAZA1981 PLC 939 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-11Read full judgment →
- MESSRS IBAD & Co. vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND Outs1981 PLD Karachi 236 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns objections filed by the defendant against a non-speaking arbitration award under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The core legal questions were whether the award was unintelligible, whether the arbitrator failed to apply his mind by not itemizing findings or using specific terminology, and whether the court could re-examine evidence to determine if the award was based on no evidence. The court held that the award was valid, dismissing the objections. It established that a non-speaking award is not required to provide separate findings on every issue or itemize the breakdown of damages, provided it clearly resolves the controversy. Furthermore, the court affirmed that it cannot act as an appellate body to re-weigh evidence or investigate the sufficiency of evidence before an arbitrator. The use of a lump sum award is legally permissible, and the arbitrator’s failure to use specific legal terminology, such as damages, does not invalidate the award. The court concluded that the arbitrator acted within his jurisdiction, and the award was made a rule of the court.
Questions settled- Is a non-speaking arbitration award invalid if it fails to provide separate findings on each issue raised in the pleadings?
- Can a court re-examine evidence to determine the sufficiency of the basis for a non-speaking arbitration award?
- Does the failure of an arbitrator to use specific terminology like 'damages' in a non-speaking award constitute legal misconduct?
- Is a lump sum award legally valid under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- MESSRS HOUSING ENTERPRISE vs RABIA BEGUM , .1981 PLC 622 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-04Read full judgment →
- MESSRS GULISTAN CINEMA LTD. Petitioner vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LAHORE1981 PLD Lahore 472 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-20Read full judgment →
- MESSRS GHAFOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs FAZAL IMAM AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Karachi 534 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
- MESSRS G. K. SERVICES LTD., KARACHI vs INAYATULLAH KHAN, ,(1981 PLC 680 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-12-08Read full judgment →
- MESSRS FOREMOST TRADING COMPANY vs CALEDONIAN INSURANCE1981 PLD Karachi 540 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-29Read full judgment →
- MESSRS DAWOOD HERCULES CHEMICALS LTD. vs COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL1981 PLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-09Read full judgment →
- MESSRS DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD. vs MAHMOOD SHAH, .(1981 PLC 580 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-03-09Read full judgment →
- MESSRS CRESCENT SAW MILLS, KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD ARIF ,1981 PLC 148 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-01-29Read full judgment →
- MESSRS CORNING GLASS PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER, ,(1981 PLC 361 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
- MESSRS BURMA OIL MILLS LTD. vs MESSRS ZAMINDAR COTTON FACTORY, KARACHI1981 PLD Karachi 143 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-04Read full judgment →
- MESSRS BRADY & Co. (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs MESSRS SAYED SAIGOL INDUSTRIES1981 SCMR 494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals by special leave arose from suits for damages filed at Mianwali by the respondents against the appellant company, which raised preliminary objections regarding territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and lack of privity of contract. The trial court and the Lahore High Court dismissed the appellant's objections, holding that the Mianwali court had territorial jurisdiction as a part of the cause of action arose there. The core legal question was whether Explanation II to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 controls clause (c) thereof, thereby restricting suits against a corporation solely to its principal office or a place with a subordinate office where a part of the cause of action arose. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and held that Explanation II relates exclusively to clauses (a) and (b) concerning the carrying on of business, while clause (c) operates independently. The key principle laid down is that clause (c) of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allows a suit against a corporation to be instituted wherever the cause of action wholly or in part arises, unaffected by the limitations of Explanation II.
Questions settled- Does Explanation II to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 control clause (c) of the said section?
- Can a corporation be sued under clause (c) of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 at a place where a part of the cause of action arose, even if it does not maintain a subordinate office there?
- What is the function of Explanation II to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in relation to a corporation carrying on business?
- MESSRS BOOZ ALLEN & HEMILTON INTERNATIONAL (PANAMA) INC., U. S. A. vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE1981 SCMR 536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a set of petitions for leave to appeal directed against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court relating to tax references. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of petitions barred by a significant delay of 414 days without any application for condonation of delay or explanation for the limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the petitions were hopelessly time-barred and liable to dismissal, observing further that adding a prayer against a subsequent order refusing a certificate of fitness under the repealed constitutional provisions regarding appeals does not extend or save the limitation period for the main judgment. The key principle laid down is that petitions filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation without a proper application for condonation explaining each day of delay cannot be entertained, and attempting to link them with subsequent fruitless applications for fitness certificates does not cure the defect of time-bar.
Questions settled- Are petitions for leave to appeal liable to dismissal when they are barred by a substantial period of limitation without any application or ground advanced for condonation of delay?
- Does the inclusion of a prayer against an order refusing a certificate of fitness extend the period of limitation for filing petitions against the main judgment?
- MESSRS BAYER PHARMA LTD. vs Mirza HUSSAIN AKHTAR1981 PLC 24 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-03-12Read full judgment →
- MESSRS BAHOO FILMS CORPORATION (REGD.) vs THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHER1981 PLD Lahore 512 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-08Read full judgment →
- MESSRS BAHO FILM CORPORATION vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Lahore 295 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-11Read full judgment →
- MESSRS AMIN FABRICS LTD., KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD QURAISH AND 3 OTHERS,1981 PLC 748 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-06-01Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ALLIED TURNKEY GROUPS LTD., KARACHI vs NAWAB SHAH AND ANOTHER ,1981 PLC 731 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
- MESSRS AL-AZMAT LTD., KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL, .1981 PLC 690 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-12-07Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ADAMJEE INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND1981 PLC 93 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ADAM TEA LTD. vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 3 OTHERS, .1981 PLC 525 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-09Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ABDUL LATIF-ABDUL SHAKOOR MADRASWALLA, KARACHI vs MESSERS1981 PLD Karachi 367 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-11Read full judgment →
- Messes SIND ALKALIS LTD. vs WORKERS' UNION1981 PLC 918 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
- MESSERS BEACH LUXURY HOTEL LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, KARACHI1981 PLD Supreme Court 202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an assessee's appeal challenging the decision of the High Court regarding the determination of the actual cost of a building for depreciation allowance under the Income-tax Act. The core legal question is whether the cost of the building to the assessee for calculating depreciation is the full apportioned nominal price entered under the mercantile system of accounting, or if it should be reduced by the lesser market price paid for compensation books used to discharge the liability. The Supreme Court held that while the mercantile system permits entering the liability incurred, any portion of the liability met by persons other than the assessee—such as through the purchase of compensation books below their nominal value—must be excluded from the actual cost pursuant to Section 10(3-A) of the Income-tax Act. The Court concluded that the cost of the building for depreciation purposes must be reduced by the difference between the nominal value of the compensation books and the lower price actually paid for them, thereby establishing the principle that 'actual cost' is subject to diminution where the burden of cost is lessened by external contributions or discounted instruments.
Questions settled- Whether the cost of a building for depreciation allowance under the mercantile system of accounting is the full nominal liability incurred or the actual burden of cost borne by the assessee?
- Can the assessing authority go behind the disclosed price or apportioned cost of an asset to determine the true actual cost to the assessee?
- Does the utilization of compensation books purchased below their nominal value reduce the actual cost of the asset for depreciation purposes under Section 10(3-A) of the Income-tax Act?
- MESSER MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHIRAGH DIN AND 2 OTHERS vs PAKISTAN1981 CLC 343 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MERCHANT NAVY SEAMEN'S UNION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, KARACHI, . (1981 PLC 958 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
- MERCANTILE MUTUAL INSURANCE Co. OF PAKISTAN LTD vs MASTER IQBAL AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1329 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MERAJ DIN vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ AND Another1981 SCMR 156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of a large house in Gujranwala between two claimant displaced persons, Meraj Din and Muhammad Siddiq. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner had bifurcated the house into two independent portions to accommodate both parties. However, the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner set aside this order, ruling that the house was indivisible and transferring the whole property to the respondent. The High Court declared these orders without lawful authority and remanded the case, noting a failure to consider the principle of accommodating maximum displaced persons and the lack of a finding on prior possession under the relevant schedule. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order of remand, ruling that while divisibility is a question of fact, the failure of the authorities to consider all pertinent factors and prior possession justified re-examination, while clarifying that the Settlement authorities must decide the matter uninfluenced by the High Court's observations. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the question of divisibility of a house is a question of fact that precludes interference in writ jurisdiction?
- Can a case be remanded to settlement authorities when they fail to consider relevant factors and prior possession?
- What is the dominant consideration in the settlement of displaced persons regarding large properties?
- Members NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAHAWALPUR ETC1980 PLC (C. S.) 486 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-09-17Read full judgment →
- MEHTAB Ali AND Another vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ AND ANOTHER1981 SCMR 1142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a long-standing dispute concerning the transfer of an evacuee shop. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had originally been transferred the shop, but subsequent inquiries and remand proceedings directed by the High Court led the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to find that the appellants' predecessor was not in possession of the disputed property prior to the target date, and instead found the respondent to be in continuous possession, thereby entitling the respondent to its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appellants' subsequent writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, upholding the factual findings of the Settlement Authorities. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the lower authority's finding suffered from misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the finding of fact regarding possession recorded by the statutory authority was reasonable, fair, and based on the overall weight of the evidence, and that the Court will not re-appraise evidence where the statutory authority has performed its function reasonably. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the mention of a wrong property number in a transfer application debars an applicant from the transfer of property if possession is otherwise established?
- Is it the function of the Supreme Court to re-appraise the entire evidence when reviewing findings of fact recorded by statutory settlement authorities?
- Does the failure of a statutory authority to mention a specific portion of a witness's statement imply that the statement was overlooked?
- MEHRAJ DIN . vs Mst. SARWAR JAHAN Etc.1981 PLD Lahore 659 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-03Read full judgment →
- MEHR ZAMAN KHAN AND Another vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 487 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
- MEHND ALI vs Mst. RUKHTAJ AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 24 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-05-27Read full judgment →
- MEHMOOD Alias GOKAL vs The STATE1981 SCMR 578 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, which convicted the petitioner for the murder of the deceased and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions were whether the ocular evidence was reliable given the relationship of the witnesses to the deceased, and whether the offence constituted murder under Section 302 or a lesser offence under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that while one eye-witness was the brother of the deceased, the other two eye-witnesses were unrelated and lacked motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the location and depth of the stab wound on the vital part of the body demonstrated a clear intention to kill rather than merely cause harm. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that the nature of an injury and its placement on a vital organ are critical indicators of the perpetrator's intent in homicide cases.
Questions settled- Does the presence of a familial relationship between an eye-witness and the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
- Does the location and depth of a stab wound on a vital part of the body establish an intention to kill under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when supported by ocular evidence, motive, and the recovery of a blood-stained weapon?
- MEHDI HASAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI1981 SCMR 1127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition upholding his ejectment from a rented shop. The respondent-landlord had sought eviction on the ground of personal requirement for his son, which was ordered by the Rent Controller and affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an appellate court judgment can be challenged merely on the ground of being brief, and whether the High Court erred in dismissing the constitutional petition. The Supreme Court held that an appellate judgment is not required to be unnecessarily long as long as it is intelligible, addresses the points urged, and clearly reflects the ratio decidendi. Furthermore, the Court held that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court was not properly invoked as no valid ground was raised. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court judgment can be set aside merely on the ground that it is brief?
- Is an appellate court bound to write an unnecessarily long judgment when the decision is intelligible and to the point?
- Can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked without raising a proper ground in the writ petition?