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.
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs D. I.-G. OF POLICE, GUJRANWALA AND OTHERS , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 656 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-05-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs PROVINCE OF SIND1981 PLC (C. S.) 636 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1981-04-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs MUSTAFA KHAN AND 5 Othsrs1981 PLD Karachi 56 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs MUNIR AND 4 Other1981 SCMR 504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court granting bail to respondents 1 to 4 who were implicated in a case under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner contended that the respondents shared a common object and raised a general lalkara, implicating them in the murder. The Supreme Court observed that decisions in criminal cases depend upon their peculiar facts and circumstances, and a general lalkara may or may not fix persons with joint criminal liability depending on those circumstances. Since no active role or specific injury was attributed to the respondents, and the High Court exercised its discretion judicially in granting bail without perversity or miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court declined to interfere. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, with the clarification that observations made during bail hearings are tentative and will not prejudice the trial.
Questions settled- Does a general lalkara invariably fix all persons present at the scene with joint criminal liability regardless of the circumstances?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary grant of bail by a High Court in the absence of a perverse exercise or miscarriage of justice?
- Do tentative observations made by a court while deciding a bail application prejudice the case of the complainant at the subsequent trial?
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs DISTRICT MANAGER, K RACH1 TRANSPORT CORPORATION .1981 PLC 186 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-03-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR ETC. vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND Other1981S C M R 1162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises civil petitions arising from a common order of the Baluchistan Service Tribunal, Quetta, which accepted the appeals of the respondents and interfered with the petitioners' seniority as Tehsildars. The petitioners had initially been selected, reverted, and subsequently reinstated in service with back-dated seniority by orders of the Governor. The Service Tribunal altered their seniority rankings without setting aside the underlying reinstatement and seniority-granting orders of the Governor, on the premise that seniority could not run from a back date when the petitioners were not actively performing duties as Tehsildars. The core legal question is whether consequential seniority fixed pursuant to competent executive orders can be interfered with while the foundational reinstatement and seniority orders remain subsisting and un-set aside. The Supreme Court held that until the orders granting back-dated seniority are formally set aside, the consequential seniority fixation cannot be legally interfered with. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioners to examine this proposition.
Questions settled- Can consequential seniority fixed pursuant to an executive order be interfered with while the foundational order granting back-dated seniority remains subsisting and un-set aside?
- Whether a service tribunal can alter seniority rankings without setting aside the underlying reinstatement and seniority-granting orders of the competent authority?
- Does back-dated seniority depend strictly upon the actual performance of duties during the disputed period?
- ABDUL BARI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 2 Other1981 PLD Karachi 290 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This reference was heard by a Full Bench of the High Court of Sindh concerning constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging orders of compulsory retirement passed under Section 13(ii) of the Civil Servants Act 1973 after twenty-five years of service. The primary legal question referred was whether petitions challenging such retirement orders under Article 199 are barred under Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether the Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters. The High Court answered the reframed question in the affirmative, holding that the petitions under Article 199 are barred by Article 212. The Court laid down that an order of retirement in the public interest under Section 13(ii) relates to terms and conditions of service and is fully appealable under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973. It was held that the constitutional bar under Article 212 is absolute and mutually exclusive, ousting the High Court's jurisdiction even on grounds of mala fides, lack of jurisdiction, ultra vires, or coram non judice.
Questions settled- Whether constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution seeking to challenge orders of retirement under Section 13(ii) of the Civil Servants Act 1973 are barred under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Whether an order of retirement under Section 13(ii) of the Civil Servants Act 1973 falls within the exclusion of fitness under Section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 or is appealable before the Service Tribunal?
- Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 in service matters committed to the Service Tribunal on grounds that the impugned order is mala fide, ultra vires, without jurisdiction, or coram non judice?
- Does an order passed by an incompetent departmental authority take the matter outside the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- ABDUL BAQUI vs SHAISTA KHAN AND Another1981S C M R468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the cancellation of bail by the Baluchistan High Court. The petitioner was arrested in connection with an occurrence in Quetta and was initially granted interim bail, which was subsequently recalled when it transpired he was charged under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code. After the submission of the challan, the Additional Sessions Judge granted him bail on the ground that the trial would take time. The complainant successfully moved the High Court for bail cancellation, noting that injuries were inflicted on vital parts of the complainant's body and that the petitioner was tentatively implicated under section 307. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court exercised its discretion arbitrarily or unreasonably. The Court held that the High Court properly cancelled the bail based on the material implicating the petitioner in a serious offense, and found no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the decision. The key principle laid down is that bail may be cancelled by a superior court when the accused is tentatively implicated in a serious crime involving injuries to vital parts of the body, and the lower court's grant of bail under such circumstances is unsustainable.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can cancel bail granted by a lower court when the accused is charged with an offense under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Does the cancellation of bail by the High Court under Section 307 amount to an arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of discretion?
- Can a trial court entertain a fresh application for bail after recording some evidence if circumstances permit?
- ABDUL BAQI vs Mst. NAYARA SIDDIQI1981 P Cr. L J 490 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, HEALTH DEPARTMENT1981 PLC (C. S.) 461 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-09-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs Rana REHMAT ALI KHAN AND OTHERS1981 CLC 1710 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, RAWALPINDI AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 1447 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ ETC vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, RAHIMYARKHAN AND1981 PLD Lahore 457 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ AND ANOTHER vs SAJJAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 167 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-05-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AND 4 Other vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 4 Other1981 PLD Lahore 93 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-03Read full judgment →
- ABBASI TEXTILE MILLS LTD. RAHIMYAR KHAN vs ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, MULTAN AND' ANOTHER1981 CLC 56 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-18Read full judgment →
- ABBAS vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 541 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-01Read full judgment →
- ABAAD ALI AND Another vs MUHAMMAD DIN1981 SCMR 742 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal stemming from a pre-emption suit. The core legal question determined by the court was whether the petitioners qualified as tenants entitled to pre-empt a land sale under the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 115, given their assertion of tenancy based on oral evidence regarding cultivation and lessee status. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the liability to pay rent is the primary condition for establishing tenancy under the applicable definition adopted from the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, and oral testimony alone is insufficient to rebut the correctness of the revenue record which showed no such liability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. The key principle laid down is that oral testimony cannot displace the presumption of truth attached to revenue records regarding tenancy without proof of the essential legal requirement of liability to pay rent.
Questions settled- Whether oral testimony alone is sufficient to disprove the presumption attached to the revenue record regarding tenancy?
- Is the liability to pay rent a necessary condition for qualifying as a tenant under Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
- Can petitioners claim a right of pre-emption as tenants without establishing their tenancy status through proper evidence?
- ABA UMAR SHAIKHA vs ABDUL REHMAN SHAH AND Another1981 P Cr. L J 455 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a Magistrate, which were initiated on a private complaint under Section 420 and Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the non-payment of the balance price for cattle purchased on credit in the course of prior business dealings constitutes a criminal offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust, or whether it amounts strictly to a civil liability. The Sindh High Court held that the allegations in the complaint, even if accepted as true, disclosed a purely civil dispute regarding the recovery of money and did not make out the ingredients of any criminal offence. Consequently, the Court allowed the application and quashed the pending criminal proceedings, laying down the principle that the mere failure to pay a debt or the purchase price of goods bought on credit arising from established business relations does not constitute a criminal offence under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and cannot be used as a substitute for civil recovery.
Questions settled- Does the non-payment of the balance price of goods purchased on credit constitute a criminal offence under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can criminal proceedings initiated on a private complaint be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the dispute is essentially of a civil nature?
- Does a history of business dealings and credit transactions between parties preclude criminal liability for unpaid debts?
- A. M. WAHIDI vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1981 SCMR 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his reversion from the post of Section Officer to Assistant Incharge. The petitioner, initially appointed as an ad hoc Section Officer, failed to pass the mandatory qualifying examination within two allowed attempts, despite missing the second attempt due to illness. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed a legal right to retain his ad hoc position despite failing the examination, and whether his reversion was legally flawed due to procedural or competency issues. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had no vested legal right to continue in the post of Section Officer on an ad hoc basis after failing to clear the qualifying examination. The Court clarified that while the government may exercise discretion to allow further attempts on compassionate grounds, such discretion does not create a justiciable legal right for the employee to retain the post. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's decision.
Questions settled- Does an ad hoc employee have a vested legal right to continue in a post after failing to pass the mandatory qualifying examination within the prescribed number of attempts?
- Can an appellate court grant leave to appeal on grounds that were not raised before the Service Tribunal?
- Does the government's discretionary decision to allow an employee another attempt at a qualifying examination on compassionate grounds create a legal right to retain an ad hoc position?
- A. M. QURESHI vs UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Supreme Court 377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal addressed whether a foreign state and its trade representation enjoy absolute sovereign immunity from being sued in the courts of Pakistan for commercial and trading transactions. The plaintiff had filed a suit for the recovery of commission and damages for breach of contract against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its Trade Representation in Pakistan. The trial court and the appellate bench dismissed the suit, holding it non-maintainable without the central government's consent under the Code of Civil Procedure. Granting special leave, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the doctrine of absolute sovereign immunity no longer represents a uniform rule of customary international law regarding commercial activities, which are governed by the restrictive theory of immunity (acta jure gestionis). The Court ruled that under the bilateral treaty, the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and the State Immunity Ordinance 1981, a foreign state entering into commercial contracts localized in Pakistan is subject to local municipal jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower court orders and remanding the suit for trial.
Questions settled- Does a foreign state enjoy absolute immunity from being sued in the municipal courts of Pakistan in respect of commercial transactions?
- Whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 expressly or impliedly bar a suit against a foreign state without the prior consent of the central government?
- Do rules of customary international law regarding sovereign immunity apply to commercial and trading activities undertaken by a foreign state or its organs?
- Are statutes relating to diplomatic and state immunity procedural in nature and thus applicable retrospectively to pending proceedings?
- A. AZ1Z SUMAWALA vs PRESIDING OFFICER, III S1ND LABOUR COURT, KARACHIAND ANOTHER1981 PLC 834 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-25Read full judgment →
- A BDULLAH JAVAID vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, MULTAN REGION AND ANOTHER,1981 PLC (C. S.) 832 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- A & B INDUSTRIAL GASES LTD. vs ALLAH BAKHSH MALIK /1981 PLC 111 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-01-12Read full judgment →
- ZULQARNAIN MALIK vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS1980 CLC 2046 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-11Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR vs PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION1980 PLC (C. S.) 510 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1979-02-07Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR ALI vs SARDAR KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 1131 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-05-29Read full judgment →
- ZULFIKAR ALI BHUTTO vs THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND 4 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 113 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two habeas corpus petitions filed before the Sindh High Court seeking the release of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was detained in Central Jail, Rawalpindi. The petitioners challenged the validity of the convictions rendered by the Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court, arguing that both courts were coram non judice due to alleged irregularities in the appointments of their respective Chief Justices. The core legal questions addressed were whether the Sindh High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction over a detention occurring outside its province and whether it could issue writs against superior courts. The Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the detention occurred in Rawalpindi, outside its authority. Furthermore, the Court ruled that under Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, no writ of any kind can be issued against the High Court or the Supreme Court. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed in limine, affirming that the Court cannot interfere with the judgments of superior courts or exercise jurisdiction over matters beyond its territorial limits.
Questions settled- Does the Sindh High Court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition regarding a detention occurring in Rawalpindi?
- Can a High Court issue a writ against the Supreme Court or another High Court under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is a court empowered to declare the Supreme Court or a High Court coram non judice based on the alleged invalidity of the appointment of a Chief Justice?
- ZIKUR REHMAN AND 3 OTHERS vs Haji MUHAMMAD YASIN1980 CLC 284 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-06Read full judgment →
- ZIAUL HASSAN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 531 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-09Read full judgment →
- ZARIN KHAN vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, charged with double murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code, sought bail on the grounds of infirmity pursuant to the second proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. His bail applications were previously dismissed by the Sessions Judge and the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that medical reports confirming his chronic Asthmatic Bronchitis and pulmonary tuberculosis qualified him as an infirm person entitled to bail. The Supreme Court examined the medical evidence, including reports from a private practitioner, the jail doctor, and a Medical Board. The Court held that while the petitioner suffered from chronic ailments, the medical evidence did not establish that his condition rendered him an 'infirm person' within the meaning of the statute, as he could receive adequate treatment within the jail system. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the jail authorities are responsible for providing necessary specialized treatment to the petitioner, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does a diagnosis of chronic Asthmatic Bronchitis and pulmonary tuberculosis automatically qualify an accused as an infirm person under the second proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on medical grounds if the medical evidence indicates that their condition can be treated within the jail hospital?
- What is the responsibility of jail authorities regarding an accused who requires specialized medical treatment while in custody?
- ZAKIR ALI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI1980 PLC (C. S.) 273 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-09-15Read full judgment →
- ZAKAULLAH vs Mst. SULTAN JEHAN BEGUM1980 SCMR 896 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind, which dismissed the petitioner's second appeal for non-prosecution due to the absence of the petitioner and his counsel. The petitioner sought to have the appeal re-admitted, claiming his counsel was busy before another bench and had received incorrect information regarding an adjournment. The High Court rejected this application, noting that no formal intimation was provided to the court, the affidavit failed to specify the details of the alleged engagement, and the claim regarding the adjournment was implausible. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's findings and concurred with the reasoning that the petitioner's assertions lacked merit and credibility. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to re-admit the appeal. The principle affirmed is that an application for re-admission of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution requires credible evidence of sufficient cause for absence, and unsubstantiated claims of counsel's engagement or misinformation do not constitute valid grounds for restoration.
Questions settled- Can an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution be re-admitted based on an unsubstantiated claim that counsel was busy before another bench?
- Is a vague assertion of counsel's engagement sufficient to set aside an ex parte order of dismissal?
- Does the failure to provide formal intimation to the court regarding counsel's absence justify the dismissal of an application for re-admission of an appeal?
- ZAIGHAM HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 634 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-09-06Read full judgment →
- ZAIGHAM HAFEEZ vs CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE1980 SCMR 527 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a student who was disqualified from passing a Matriculation Examination and three subsequent examinations after being found guilty of using unfair means. Following a previous remand by the Supreme Court for a de novo inquiry, the Disciplinary Committee again found the petitioner guilty, and the High Court dismissed his subsequent writ petition. The core legal question is whether the educational authorities disposed of the case in conformity with the intent and spirit of the Supreme Court's earlier remand order, and whether the finding of unfair means was sustainable based on the record. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal should be granted after observing that the objectionable material was not in the petitioner's handwriting, the answer was not an exact reproduction, and the student possessed an otherwise excellent academic and career record. The Court suspended the disciplinary orders and directed the announcement of the petitioner's examination result subject to the final decision.
Questions settled- Whether educational authorities disposed of a case on remand in conformity with the intent and spirit of the Supreme Court's order?
- Can a finding of unfair means be sustained when the objectionable material is not in the candidate's handwriting and lacks exact reproduction?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted in educational disciplinary matters involving student disqualification?
- ZAHRI KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 153 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-16Read full judgment →
- ZAHOORULHAQ AND ANOTHER vs Syed HAZOOR SHAH AND OTHERS1980 CLC 1054 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-27Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR MUHAMMAD KURESHI AND 2 OTHERS vs SADRUDDIN1980 CLC 897 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-17Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's rejection of a bail application filed by a Sub-Engineer accused of offenses under Sections 409, 461, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, involving the misappropriation of government property. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the prolonged delay in completing the investigation and submitting the trial report. The Supreme Court observed that although the FIR was registered as far back as 7-12-1978, the police had not submitted even an incomplete challan, and an audit was still ongoing to determine the exact value of the alleged stolen property. Converting the petition into an appeal, the Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing required bail bonds. The Court laid down the principle that undue delay in completing investigation and failure to submit a challan justify granting bail, reserving the prosecution's liberty to seek cancellation upon completing investigation.
Questions settled- Does long delay in completing an investigation and submitting a challan justify the grant of bail to an accused?
- Can the Supreme Court grant post-arrest bail while reserving the prosecution's liberty to apply for cancellation after investigation is completed?
- ZAHOOR AHMED QURESHI vs Syed IJAZ ALI RIZVI ETC.1980 CLC 1223 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR AHMAD TIRMIZI vs MEMBER (TAXES), CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE1980 PLC (C. S.) 260 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-02-11Read full judgment →
- ZAHID MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER vs Mst. REHANA1980 CLC 1027 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →
- ZAHEER HUSSAIN vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, LAHORE REGION1980 PLC (C. S.) 592 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
- ZAFFAR MAHMOOD vs MUHAMMAD SALE H1980 CLC 1329 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-05Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR HUSSAIN RIZVI vs MUHAMMAD HANIF1980 CLC 2177 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-22Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ALI vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 594 (2) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-06-09Read full judgment →
- YOUSUF vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1969 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
- YOUSIF ALI vs DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES.1980 PLC (C. S.) 691 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1980-04-16Read full judgment →
- YOUSAF HUSSAIN vs THE STATE AND 25 OTHERs1980 P Cr. L J 569 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-17Read full judgment →
- YASIN alias CHEEMA AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 575 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the convictions of the appellants under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Tufail. The core legal questions involved whether the defence had a legal right to reserve the cross-examination of a medical witness for the Sessions Court under Section 509 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whether the failure to summon the medical witness caused prejudice, and whether there was any irreconcilable conflict between the ocular and medical evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeals, holding that Section 509 does not confer a right on an accused to demand the presence of a medical witness or to reserve cross-examination, as summoning the witness lies entirely within the discretion of the court. The Court laid down that an accused person has no inherent right to reserve the cross-examination of a medical witness for the trial court, that the non-production of a medical witness does not vitiate proceedings unless actual prejudice is shown, and that minor discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence do not warrant the rejection of truthful eye-witness accounts supported by corroborative recoveries.
Questions settled- Does an accused person have a legal right under the Code of Criminal Procedure to reserve the cross-examination of a medical witness for the Sessions Court?
- Whether the failure of the trial court or High Court to summon a medical witness for cross-examination automatically causes prejudice to the defence?
- Can a conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony alone form the basis for rejecting otherwise credible eye-witness accounts?
- Does delay in forwarding recovered weapons to the Chemical Examiner invariably render the chemical report unreliable?
- YAR MUHAMMAD vs SECRETARY, EDUCATION1980 PLC (C. S.) 279 (2) · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-29Read full judgment →
- YAQUB AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 556 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the convictions and sentences of three appellants for the murder of Amir Khan under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had sentenced two appellants to death and one to life imprisonment. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony from interested witnesses and the appropriate sentencing in cases involving retaliatory killings. The Lahore High Court held that the testimony of closely related witnesses required independent corroboration, which was absent, leading to their exclusion. However, the court relied on the testimony of an independent witness to uphold the convictions of two appellants. The court acquitted the third appellant, finding his presence doubtful. Regarding sentencing, the court applied the principle that avenging a father's murder constitutes a mitigating circumstance, thereby reducing the death sentences of the two convicted appellants to imprisonment for life. The judgment reaffirmed that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable, and courts must sift the grain from the chaff to determine the truth.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of interested witnesses be relied upon without independent corroboration?
- Is the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' applicable in Pakistani criminal jurisprudence?
- Does the act of avenging a father's murder constitute a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence?
- Should a court acquit an accused if their presence at the scene of the crime is doubtful despite being implicated by an eyewitness?
- YA QOOB vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 704 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-20Read full judgment →
- WEST PAKISTAN PROVINCE (NOW N.W. F. PROVINCE) vs Hafiz ALLAH YAR AND OTHERS1980 PLD Peshawar 105 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- WAZIR BAT KHAN Accused vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 292 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-10-14Read full judgment →
- WAZIR ALI AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 309 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-29Read full judgment →
- WARSIN vs KHUDA BUX AND OTHERS1980 PLD Rev. 27 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1977-07-16Read full judgment →
- WAROO vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 789 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-20Read full judgment →
- WAR1S ALI AND 2 OTHERS vs GHULAM RASOOL AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 728 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-06Read full judgment →
- WAQAR-UL-ISLAM vs EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 163 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1239 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs COLLECTOR, LANDS ACQUISITION, HAZARA, ABBOTTABAD1980 CLC 1090 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-23Read full judgment →
- WALI KHAN vs NASIR KHAN AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 944 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent by the Peshawar High Court in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondent and his absconding brother waylaid the deceased, with the respondent exhorting his brother to kill the victim. The trial court had convicted the respondent under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but the High Court acquitted him, citing the improbability of a younger brother exhorting an elder brother to commit murder when both were armed, thus extending the benefit of doubt. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in acquitting the respondent without explicitly disbelieving the eyewitnesses. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt does not necessitate a finding that eyewitnesses deliberately provided false testimony. The Court affirmed that the High Court had applied its mind to the facts and that the grounds for setting aside an acquittal were not satisfied.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of an accused based on the benefit of doubt necessarily imply that the eyewitnesses provided false testimony?
- Can an appellate court acquit an accused without explicitly rejecting the testimony of eyewitnesses?
- What are the conditions required for the Supreme Court to set aside an order of acquittal?
- WAJIHUDDIN vs PROVINCE OF SIND1980 PLC (C. S.) 543(2) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-02-02Read full judgment →
- WAJAHAT HUSSAIN vs Mst. HAJIRA BEGUM1980 CLC 1830 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-25Read full judgment →
- WAHIDUDDIN vs PROVINCE OF SIND1980 PLC (C. S.) 390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, appointed as a Civil Judge on a regular basis upon selection by the Public Service Commission, had his services terminated under section 11 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973 while serving as a probationer. He appealed to the Sind Service Appellate Tribunal, contending that his termination was a punitive removal for misconduct requiring an inquiry, and sought the production of records, which the Tribunal refused. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the termination was a simple discharge of a probationer. In the petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued he was not a probationer and that the Tribunal erred in refusing to summon the record. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was indeed a probationer under initial appointment, that the Tribunal's power to summon records under the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is discretionary, and that the refusal to summon records did not raise a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the termination of a civil servant serving as a probationer under section 11 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973 requires a show cause notice and an inquiry?
- Does an initial appointment to a civil service otherwise than by promotion or transfer constitute an initial appointment on probation?
- Is the power of the Sind Service Tribunal to compel the production of documents under section 5(2)(b) of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 discretionary?
- Does the question of whether a service tribunal should summon record in a given case involve a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- WAHID BUX vs Haji KHUDA BUX AND 2 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 546 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-22Read full judgment →
- WAHEED AKHTAR vs SUPERINTENDENT, CAMP JAIL, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Lahore 131 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-27Read full judgment →
- WAHAD BAKHSH vs COLLECTOR, MUZAFFARGARH AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C.S.) 401 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-12-17Read full judgment →
- W ALI MUHAMMAD vs SHABBIR AHMAD1980 CLC 835 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-16Read full judgment →
- VIK10 vs ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 602 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two separate criminal miscellaneous applications seeking the cancellation of bail granted to accused persons in murder cases. The core legal questions concern the criteria for cancelling bail and the circumstances under which a second bail application may be entertained. The Court held that while there is no hard and fast rule, bail may be cancelled where the order granting it is perverse, ignores salient facts, or results from a capricious exercise of judicial discretion. Regarding successive bail applications, the Court affirmed that a fresh application is competent if it introduces new material or grounds, or if the applicant demonstrates that a particular circumstance was not previously considered by the court. Applying these principles, the Court cancelled the bail of two accused where the lower court had disregarded patent evidence, including positive ballistic reports and eyewitness testimony, while maintaining the bail of a third accused where no such arbitrary exercise of discretion was found. The judgment emphasizes that bail is a matter of judicial discretion, not to be cancelled as a matter of course.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can the High Court cancel bail that has already been granted?
- Is a second bail application competent if it relies on identical grounds to the first?
- Does the High Court have the authority to cancel bail if the lower court's order was based on a capricious exercise of discretion?
- Can bail be granted solely on the ground that an incident lacked premeditation?
- VAKIL KHAN vs HAJI KHAN AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 582 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-29Read full judgment →
- UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB vs PERFECT ELECTRIC CONCERN1980 PLD Lahore 305 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a dispute regarding an electrification contract between the University of the Punjab and Perfect Electric Concern, where the appellant rescinded the contract and withheld payments. Clause 49 of the contract referred all disputes to the Chancellor of the University as a sole arbitrator. When the Chancellor did not enter upon the reference, the respondent filed an application under sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act for the appointment of a new arbitrator. The trial court answered in the affirmative, holding that the named arbitrator had declined to act and that the vacancy could be filled. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the refusal of an arbitrator designated by virtue of his office does not frustrate the arbitration agreement unless the contract expressly intends that the vacancy should not be supplied. The Court laid down that the appointment of an arbitrator by official designation stands on the same footing as a named individual, and the court retains the power to appoint a substitute arbitrator under the Arbitration Act when the named or designated arbitrator refuses to act.
Questions settled- Whether the court has jurisdiction to appoint a sole arbitrator when the arbitrator named in the agreement by virtue of his office has refused to act?
- Does the refusal of an arbitrator designated by official status frustrate the arbitration agreement so that the vacancy cannot be supplied?
- Whether an arbitration agreement can be ordered to be filed in court under section 20 of the Arbitration Act when the original document is not physically produced but its terms are admitted?
- UMRA KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 PLD Peshawar 145 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-16Read full judgment →
- UMAR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs LAND COMMISSIONER, N.W. F. P., PESHAWAR1980 CLC 1717 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-03-01Read full judgment →
- UMAR DRAZ CHEEM A vs NAZAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions challenging the Lahore High Court's interpretation of clause (f) of section 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, concerning candidate disqualifications for local council elections. The core legal question involves whether clause (f) incorporates disqualifications from other laws only when a candidate has been specifically disqualified by a prior individual order, or whether disqualifications operate by operation of law. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly interpreted the provision, finding that the term 'disqualified' under clause (f) signifies disability according to other statutes without requiring a prior specific order of disqualification, and that disqualifications under other laws form an integral part of the Ordinance. The petitions were consequently dismissed, establishing that statutory disqualifications for parliament or provincial assemblies apply automatically to local council candidates under clause (f) by operation of law.
Questions settled- Whether clause (f) of section 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 requires a candidate to be specifically disqualified by a prior order of a competent authority before the disqualification applies?
- Do the disqualifications for membership of the Parliament or a Provincial Assembly under other laws apply automatically by operation of law to local council candidates?
- Does section 4 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 override disqualifications contained in other statutes incorporated by reference?
- UMAR DIN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, INCHARGE ANTICORRUPTION1980 PLD Karachi 158 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
- UMAR DIN vs FAZAL MUHAMMAD1980 SCMR 906 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge regarding the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant. The landlord sought eviction based on two grounds: default in rent payment for November and December 1973, and material damage to the demised property, specifically the removal of doors and tampering with walls, which allegedly impaired the property's utility. The core legal question was whether the alleged structural alterations constituted sufficient grounds for eviction under the relevant rent laws. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact by the three lower courts regarding the removal of doors and damage to walls were conclusive. The Court affirmed that such actions constituted material impairment of the property's utility, thereby justifying the eviction order. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts regarding the material impairment of rented premises, provided such findings are supported by the evidence on record.
Questions settled- Does the removal of doors and tampering with walls in a rented shop constitute material impairment of the property's utility?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts in rent ejectment cases?
- Is a tenant liable for eviction if they damage the demised property to an extent that impairs its utility?
- TRANSOCEAN ASIA LTD., KARACHI vs MESSRS RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 556 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-18Read full judgment →
- THE STATEComplainant vs MUHAMMAD SALEH AND ANOTHERAccused1980 PLD Karachi 131 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves the suo motu revision of thirty long-pending criminal cases from the Dadu District, characterized by inordinate delays and lack of progress. The High Court examined the failure of trial courts to secure the attendance of witnesses and accused persons, noting a systemic lack of judicial supervision. The core legal question concerned the appropriate disposal of these cases where prosecution evidence was absent or insufficient. The Court held that for cases involving absconding accused, trial courts must strictly adhere to the procedures under Sections 87, 88, and 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Regarding cases where the prosecution failed to produce witnesses despite repeated opportunities, the Court exercised its power under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit the accused, finding no prospect of conviction. The judgment establishes that magistrates bear a mandatory duty to supervise their offices, ensure the service of processes, and prevent the abuse of process by allowing fruitless, long-pending criminal proceedings to continue indefinitely.
Questions settled- Can a court acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there is no prospect of conviction due to the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses?
- What is the procedure for recording evidence in the absence of an absconding accused under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the High Court have the authority to exercise revisional powers to dispose of long-pending cases in subordinate courts?
- Is the failure of a magistrate to supervise the issuance of court processes a valid ground for judicial intervention in pending criminal cases?
- THE STATEComplainant vs GURMUKHDAS AND ANOTHERAccused1980 P Cr. L J 148 · Drug Court · 1978-10-27Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs NAYYAR MIRZA AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The State filed a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that upheld a Sessions Judge's decision to continue a criminal trial from the stage where his predecessor had left off, rather than conducting a de novo trial. The trial involved charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the presiding judge had retired after 41 of 53 prosecution witnesses had been examined. The accused requested to continue the trial to avoid further delay, a position the Sessions Judge accepted, noting that the interests of justice favored continuity and that no prejudice would be caused to the accused. The High Court dismissed the State's revision petition, finding no merit in the State's objection. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging that the legal objections raised regarding de novo trials were academically important and intricate, declined to intervene at this interlocutory stage. The Court held that the specific facts and the advanced stage of the trial did not justify interference, preferring to allow the trial to conclude and review the matter, if necessary, in the totality of the case.
Questions settled- Can a successor judge continue a criminal trial from the stage left by a predecessor without conducting a de novo trial?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere in interlocutory criminal proceedings where the trial is at an advanced stage?
- Is a de novo trial mandatory upon the transfer or retirement of a presiding judge in a criminal case?
- THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD YUSUFAccused1980 PLD Azad J & K 36 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 268 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal appeals arose out of two decisions of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, where criminal proceedings against public servants were quashed on the ground of invalid sanctions for prosecution under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958. The core legal questions pertained to whether an executive authority, having once refused sanction or chosen departmental inquiry, retains the power to subsequently revise or withdraw that decision and grant sanction for prosecution, and whether a delegator can revise a sanction decision made by its delegatee. The Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of sanction is subject to the principle of locus poenitentiae, meaning the executive authority retains the right to recede until a decisive step is taken. Once a refusal or alternative decision (such as instituting a departmental inquiry) has been given effect to, no locus poenitentiae remains. Furthermore, an order passed by a delegatee exercising delegated powers is deemed to be the decision of the delegator itself, which exhausts the power and cannot be revised by a higher authority. Both appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent the executive from revising an order refusing sanction for prosecution after a decisive step has been taken?
- Can a delegator revise or override a decision refusing sanction for prosecution that was competently made by its delegatee?
- Is an order passed by a delegatee in exercise of delegated statutory powers deemed to be the decision of the delegator itself?
- THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD BOOTA AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLD Rev. 75 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1980-05-07Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MOHAMMAD SADIQ AND 2 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 964 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-20Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MISHAL KHAN AND 5 OTHERSAccused/1980 P Cr. L J 1176 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-17Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs KOHISTAN1980 SCMR 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The State appealed against the High Court's acquittal of the respondent, who was initially convicted for murder and causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the respondent's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of conflicting medical and ocular evidence and the respondent's plea of self-defense. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The Court found that the eye-witnesses were hostile to the respondent due to long-standing family enmity, necessitating independent corroboration which was absent. Crucially, the medical evidence contradicted the eye-witnesses' account regarding the direction of fire, rendering their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the medical evidence supported the respondent's injuries, making his plea of self-defense plausible. The Court affirmed that when ocular evidence is falsified by medical testimony and the prosecution fails to prove motive or provide corroboration for interested witnesses, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the Court dismissed the State's appeal, maintaining the acquittal, as the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof.
Questions settled- Does medical evidence contradicting ocular testimony regarding the direction of fire render eye-witness accounts unreliable?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove motive and the eye-witnesses are established to be hostile?
- Must an accused person prove a plea of self-defense, or is it sufficient that the plea cannot be ruled out?
- What is the effect of failing to put a question regarding motive to the accused during examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- THE STATE vs IQBAL HUSSAIN1980 P Cr. L J 66 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs FATEH MUHAMMAD AND 5 Others1980 P Cr. L J 1245 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-07Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs BARKAT ALI AND 4 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 1046 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-05Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs ALLAH BACHAYO Accused1980 P Cr. L J 1170 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-30Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs ABDUL MAJEED AND 4 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 950 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-28Read full judgment →
- THE SHEIKHUPURA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., SHEIKHUPURA vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR, DIST_. SHEIKHUPURA1980 SCMR 699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the recovery of funds defalcated by an employee of the petitioner-bank, which acted as a treasurer for the District Treasury. The petitioner had executed an indemnity agreement in 1955, assuming responsibility for any embezzlement by its employees. Following the conviction of an employee for defalcation, the Collector sought to recover the loss from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that government officials' failure to enforce treasury rules contributed to the loss, and sought a temporary injunction against the recovery proceedings. The trial court and appellate courts refused the injunction, and the High Court affirmed this, finding no illegality or material irregularity in the lower courts' exercise of discretion. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the grant of an interlocutory injunction is a matter of judicial discretion, and interference is only warranted if lower courts acted illegally or with material irregularity. The Court noted that the petitioner's liability under the indemnity agreement remains a triable issue requiring evidence.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with the exercise of discretion by lower courts regarding the grant of a temporary injunction absent illegality or material irregularity?
- Does an indemnity agreement covering embezzlement by employees create a prima facie liability for the employer in the context of treasury operations?
- Is the question of whether a loss occurred due to lack of official control versus contractual liability a matter requiring substantial evidence at the interlocutory stage?
- THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT1980 PLC (C. S.) 393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Punjab Administrative Tribunal which accepted an appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against his reversion from the post of Principal, Government Polytechnic Institute, Sialkot, to the post of Head Teachers Trainer. The core legal question centered on the proper interpretation of the expression 'nine years professional and/or technical education experience' required under the West Pakistan Technical Education Department Gazetted Post Recruitment Rules, 1966, specifically whether qualifying experience must be acquired subsequent to obtaining the minimum technical qualification (such as an A.M.I.E. equivalent) or could be counted from the date the candidate began imparting technical education in service. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's interpretation was unexceptional, finding no condition in the rules that limits qualifying experience solely to the period subsequent to obtaining the technical degree. Furthermore, the Court held that no substantial question of law of public importance was involved under the constitutional provision. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether professional and technical education experience required for promotion must be acquired only after obtaining the minimum prescribed technical qualification?
- Can a limitation requiring experience to be post-qualification be read into statutory recruitment rules when no such restriction is expressly stated?
- Does the interpretation of service rules regarding promotion criteria constitute a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- THE PUNJAB ASSOCIATION CLUB LAHORE vs MAJOR EJAZ AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Lahore 675 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-09Read full judgment →
- THE PREMIER INSURANCE Co. LTD., KARACHI vs THE TRANSOCEANIC STEAMSHIP1980 PLD Karachi 54 · Sindh High Court · 1973-01-26Read full judgment →
- THE PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, KARACHI1980 PLD Karachi 472 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These miscellaneous appeals were filed under section 76 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 against an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks removing the appellant's registered trade marks 'PIA' in Classes 16 and 18 pursuant to suo motu proceedings initiated under section 46(4) of the Act. The core legal questions involved whether the Registrar could exercise suo motu powers under section 46(4) without an application by an aggrieved person, and whether registered trade marks that had passed the seven-year conclusiveness period under section 24 could be cancelled without establishing fraud or violation of section 8. The Sindh High Court held that suo motu action under section 46(4) requires an underlying application by an aggrieved person, and that after seven years, a registration enjoys conclusive validity under section 24 unless fraud or a violation of section 8 is proven, with the heavy burden of proof resting entirely on the Registrar. The impugned removal order was accordingly set aside and the appeals were allowed.
Questions settled- Can the Registrar of Trade Marks issue a suo motu notice for rectification or cancellation under section 46(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 without an application from an aggrieved person?
- What is the effect of the expiration of seven years from the date of original registration of a trade mark regarding its validity under section 24 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
- On whom does the burden of proof lie when the Registrar initiates suo motu proceedings to remove a registered trade mark after the expiry of the statutory limitation period?
- Does a trade mark registered for stationery or goods require those goods to be sold as vendible articles in the market to satisfy the definition of a trade mark under section 2(1)(L) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
- THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC FANS MANUFACTURERS (REGD.), GUJRAT vs S.1980 SC MR 97 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a passing-off action initiated by the respondent, an electric fan manufacturer, against the petitioner, who also manufactures fans under the name 'National Electric Fans Manufacturers (Regd.)'. The respondent sought to restrain the petitioner from using the word 'National' in its trade name and on its products. The core legal question was whether a trader can be granted a monopoly over a common descriptive word like 'National' and whether a defendant is entitled to trade under its own business name despite potential confusion. The Supreme Court held that while a trader cannot be prohibited from using its own business name, it must not act dishonestly to pass off its goods as those of another. The Court ruled that the respondent failed to establish a prima facie case for a total monopoly over the word 'National'. However, the Court granted a qualified injunction, allowing the petitioner to use its business name while mandating specific labeling precautions to prevent consumer deception, noting that the respondent's claim was also weakened by significant delay.
Questions settled- Can a trader be granted a monopoly over a common descriptive word used in its business name?
- Is a defendant entitled to trade under its own business name if it causes confusion with an established competitor?
- Does the owner of an unregistered trade mark have the right to prevent others from using a descriptive term in their business name?
- What is the effect of significant delay on a claim for an interim injunction in a passing-off action?
- THE NATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK LTD, KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD YOUNUS1980 CLC 90 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil suit for the recovery of Rs. 42,175.43 filed by a commercial bank against a sole proprietor on the basis of a letter of credit transaction, subsequent clearance charges paid by the bank, and a demand promissory note executed by the defendant. The core legal questions involved whether the defendant remained the sole proprietor of the firm or effectively novated the contract through a partnership and subsequent dissolution, whether the defendant executed the promissory note, and whether the disposal of pledged goods without a mandatory notice under the Contract Act vitiated the defendant's liability in the absence of a counterclaim. The Sindh High Court held that the alleged partnership was a fake arrangement created to evade liability, the defendant's liability under the promissory note and initial proprietorship stood established, and the lack of a pre-sale notice under Section 176 of the Contract Act did not absolve the defendant in the absence of a counterclaim or set-off. The court accordingly decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff bank.
Questions settled- Whether a change in the constitution of a firm absolves the original sole proprietor from liability under a prior letter of credit transaction?
- Does the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act apply to a promissory note executed in connection with commercial transactions?
- Whether the disposal of pledged goods without serving a mandatory notice under Section 176 of the Contract Act invalidates the borrower's underlying liability when no counterclaim or set-off is pleaded?