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.
- ZAHOOR AHMAD ALIAS MAKI vs THE STATE AND Another1979 SCMR 448 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased, which had been upheld by the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions concerned whether the conviction was justified under Section 302 or if the offence should be reduced to culpable homicide under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses and the recovery of the weapon were sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court affirmed that the relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not inherently invalidate their testimony, especially absent evidence of enmity. Furthermore, the Court established that the intention to cause death is a matter of inference based on the facts, the nature of the weapon, and the vital part of the body targeted. Since the petitioner used a knife on a vital organ, the Court concluded that the act constituted murder under Section 302, rejecting the argument for a lesser offence.
Questions settled- Does the relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
- Is a delay in recording the First Information Report fatal to the prosecution's case?
- Under what circumstances is an offence classified as murder under Section 302 versus culpable homicide under Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the intention to cause death be inferred from the use of a weapon on a vital part of the body?
- ZAHID NASIM AND Another vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 953 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-17Read full judgment →
- ZAHID HUSSAIN vs The STATE1979 SCMR 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioners by an Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in cancelling bail when the accused were not named in the First Information Report (F.I.R.), no incriminating evidence was recovered from them during police custody, and no identification parade was conducted. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order was unjustified. The Court reasoned that the absence of the petitioners' names in the F.I.R. strongly suggested they were not known to the complainant, thereby necessitating an identification parade, which did not occur. Consequently, the Court determined the case fell under the category of 'further inquiry,' justifying the grant of bail. The Court set aside the High Court's order, restored the bail granted by the trial court, and directed the petitioners to appear before the trial court on the next scheduled date, failing which the bail would be cancelled.
Questions settled- Does the failure to name an accused in the First Information Report necessitate an identification parade?
- Is the absence of incriminating recovery and the omission of names in the F.I.R. sufficient to establish a case of 'further inquiry' for the purpose of bail?
- Can the High Court cancel bail without considering the lack of identification evidence against the accused?
- ZAHID HUSSAIN KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ABDULLA1979 PLD Karachi 628 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, against the concurrent orders of the lower courts striking out the appellant-tenant's defence and directing eviction for failing to deposit arrears of rent by the date fixed under section 13(6). The core legal question was whether the tenant's eight-day delay in depositing the rent constituted a wilful default warranting the striking off of his defence, given that he suffered from hypertension and coronary insufficiency during the relevant period. The Sindh High Court held that the tenant's failure was due to circumstances beyond his control and not an avoidable cause, thus condoning the delay. The court laid down the principle that a finding on whether a tenant committed default in the payment of rent is a mixed question of law and fact which can be displaced in second appeal, and that default inviting the penalty of a struck defence requires a non-compliance due to an avoidable cause.
Questions settled- Whether a finding by lower courts that a tenant committed default in the payment of rent is a finding of fact or a mixed question of law and fact subject to interference in second appeal?
- Does a tenant's failure to deposit rent within the time fixed under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, due to serious illness amount to wilful default?
- Under what circumstances may an appellate court summon additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to enable it to pronounce judgment?
- ZAHEER AHMED AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE---Opponent1979 P Cr. L J 109 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-08Read full judgment →
- ZAHEER AHMED AND 2 Other vs THE STATE Opponent1979 PLD Karachi 186 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-08Read full judgment →
- ZAFARULLAH KHAN vs Ch. GHULAM AHMAD AND AN07HBR1979 PLD Lahore 458 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-05Read full judgment →
- ZAFARULLAH AND Another vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1979 P Cr. L J 976 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-16Read full judgment →
- ZAFARUL HAQ vs WARIS IQBAL AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 514 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR SAEED vs THE STATE--1979 P Cr. L J 535 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-21Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR IQBAL vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 908 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-13Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ASIF vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR, MULTAN AND 21979 CLC 486 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-04Read full judgment →
- YASIN vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 32 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-11Read full judgment →
- YAROO AND Another vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 900 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-05Read full judgment →
- YAR MUHAMMAD vs MESSERS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR1979 PLC 198 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-12-16Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 47 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-09Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB KHAN vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 1069 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-25Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB KHAN AND 41 Other vs MEIVIBER (COLONIES) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB ETC1979 PLD Lahore 882 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-08Read full judgment →
- YACUB AND 2 Others vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1979 P Cr. L J 489 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
- WORKERS UNION vs MESSRS USMAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI1979 PLC 164 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-02-06Read full judgment →
- WORKERS UNION COLONY WOOLLEN MILLS LTD., MULTAN vs REGISTRAR, TRADE1979 PLC 37 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-08-03Read full judgment →
- WEST PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN - vs CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION1979 PLD Supreme Court 912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, arising from an order of the Lahore High Court declining to proceed with contempt proceedings, addressed the issue of whether an appeal lies under section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1976 against an order of the High Court refusing to initiate contempt action. The West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) initiated contempt proceedings against the Chairman of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) for allegedly violating a stay order issued by the High Court in a writ petition by continuing proceedings in separate, individual cases of other WAPDA employees. The High Court dismissed the contempt application upon receiving a report. The Supreme Court held that the power to punish for contempt is exclusively between the court and the alleged contemner, and an order by a High Court declining to take contempt action or refusing to issue notice is not an appealable order under section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1976. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a stay order issued in a specific case cannot be extended to cover separate, independent cases involving different parties. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an appeal lie under section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1976 against an order of the High Court refusing to initiate or proceed with contempt proceedings?
- Can a stay order issued by a High Court in a particular case extend to cover other separate and independent cases involving different parties?
- Is the power to punish for contempt exclusively a matter between the court and the contemner so as to preclude appellate interference when the court declines to act?
- WEST PAKISTAN CO OPERATIVE CONSUMERS SOCIETY LTD LAHORE THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR vs NADEEM NAWAZISH MALIK AND 3 Other1979S C M R 76 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the second appeal and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts directing the petitioner's eviction from a commercial shop. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner committed a default in depositing the monthly rent as ordered under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, and whether sufficient cause existed for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the explanation provided for the delayed deposit was vague, lacking in particulars, and rightly rejected by the courts below as an afterthought. Consequently, the concurrent finding of default warranted the striking off of the defense and the passing of an eviction order. The key principle laid down is that failure to comply strictly with a tentative rent-fixation order without a valid, substantiated explanation constitutes a default justifying eviction, and findings of fact concurrently reached by lower courts on such matters will not be interfered with.
Questions settled- Whether failure to deposit rent by the stipulated date under a tentative rent order justifies striking off the tenant's defense?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding a rent default be interfered with by the Supreme Court in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Whether a vague application for condonation of delay in depositing rent warrants acceptance without necessary particulars?
- WAZIR vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 835 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-25Read full judgment →
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH RESIDENT ENGINEER1979 PLD Karachi 95 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-29Read full judgment →
- WARNER LAMBERT (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs SINDH LABOUR COURT NO.III,KARACHI1979 PLC 370 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitution petition challenged a Labour Court order directing the petitioner to enforce the deduction of Union subscriptions from the salaries of its medical representatives. The core legal questions were whether these medical representatives qualified as 'workmen' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and whether a local Union could represent employees stationed outside the province of Sindh. The Court held that the definition of 'workman' in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is broad and presumptive, covering all employees unless specifically excluded as managerial or supervisory. Finding that medical representatives possessed no power to hire or fire, were not in charge of the establishment, and operated under the control of the Head Office, the Court concluded they were 'workmen' rather than managerial staff. Furthermore, the Court held that a Collective Bargaining Agent based in Karachi could represent employees of the same company working outside the province, as they were employed, paid, and controlled by the Head Office. The petition was dismissed, affirming the Labour Court's order.
Questions settled- Are medical representatives considered 'workmen' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, include intellectual or white-collar workers?
- Can a Collective Bargaining Agent represent employees of an establishment who are posted outside the province where the Union is registered?
- What is the burden of proof for establishing that an employee is not a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- WARIS ALI AND 2 OTHERS vs GHULAM RASOOL AND ANOTHER1979 CLC 533 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning the sale of land. The appellants challenged the lower courts' decrees, seeking to introduce additional evidence regarding an alleged improvement in their status and contesting findings on waiver and limitation. The Court rejected the application for additional evidence, noting that the appellants failed to produce the document during trial or the first appeal, and that such improvement, occurring after the suit's institution, was barred by Section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Regarding waiver, the Court held that a plea of fact not raised before the first appellate court cannot be agitated in second appeal. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Article 10 of the Limitation Act, a claim that a suit is time-barred due to prior physical possession requires affirmative evidence, which was absent here. The Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, emphasizing that courts do not assist the indolent and that findings of fact affirmed by lower courts are generally final in second appeal.
Questions settled- Can a party introduce additional evidence in a second appeal that was available but not produced during the trial or first appeal?
- Does an improvement in the status of a vendee-defendant made after the institution of a pre-emption suit affect the pre-emptor's right?
- Can a plea of fact, such as waiver, be raised for the first time in a second appeal if it was not argued before the first appellate court?
- What constitutes physical possession under Article 10 of the Limitation Act for the purpose of determining the limitation period in a pre-emption suit?
- WAPDA vs F. U. MALIK AND ANOTHER1979 PLC 427 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-06-24Read full judgment →
- WAPDA THROUGH RESIDENT ENGINEER, GENERATION, NEW THERMAL POWER1979 PLC 358 · Labour Court · 1979-07-24Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD. vs THE KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION1979 PLC 83 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1978-08-18Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 17 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-28Read full judgment →
- WAJID ALI KHAN vs Mst. HAYAT BIBI ETC.S1979 SCMR 482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine the petitioner's writ petition against the order of the Settlement Commissioner. The core dispute concerns the lawful allotment of agricultural land situated in District Bahawalnagar, involving conflicting claims of allotment between the petitioner and the predecessor of the private respondents. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court was justified in declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Settlement Commissioner based on revenue records and allotment documents. The Court held that findings of fact arrived at by the Settlement Commissioner after a careful perusal of the record and unimpeached revenue documents are conclusive and properly immune from interference in constitutional writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that factual determinations regarding land allotments made by specialized revenue forums based on authentic records will not be disturbed by superior courts under writ jurisdiction unless shown to be perverse or without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether findings of fact recorded by a Settlement Commissioner regarding land allotments can be interfered with in writ jurisdiction?
- Does the High Court possess the power to dismiss in limine a writ petition challenging concurrent factual findings based on revenue records?
- WAHID BUX vs MUHAMMAD MUSA AND 4 OTHERS1979 CLC 261 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-10Read full judgment →
- WAHEEDULLAH vs ABDUL HAMEED AND Another1979 SCMR 434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition sought the cancellation of bail granted by the High Court of Sind to the respondent, Abdul Hameed, who was accused of murder and other offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting bail based on the respondent's medical condition of diabetes and the concession made by the Assistant Advocate-General, despite the respondent's prior bail rejections by the Sessions Court. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order granting bail, effectively upholding the decision. The Court's holding was based on the specific circumstances presented, including the medical reports and the state's concession. However, the Court laid down the principle that the complainant retains the liberty to seek the cancellation of bail if the accused is found to be suborning prosecution evidence, emphasizing that bail is not absolute and can be revoked if the accused interferes with the administration of justice or the integrity of the trial process.
Questions settled- Can a bail order granted by the High Court be cancelled if the accused is found suborning prosecution evidence?
- Does a concession by the state counsel regarding the medical condition of an accused justify the grant of bail in a murder case?
- Is a medical condition like diabetes, which is controllable in jail, sufficient ground for the grant of bail under the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- WAHAJUDDIN AND Another vs RAZIA BEGUM Etc.1979 SCMR 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil review petition arises from a common judgment and order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan disposing of three civil appeals concerning the transfer of a disputed house. The petitioners sought review of the judgment maintaining the transfer of the entire house to the respondent after the Settlement Authorities found the property to be indivisible. The petitioners contended that a Deputy Settlement Commissioner had reviewed an order of his predecessor without obtaining prior permission from the Additional Settlement Commissioner, an aspect allegedly escaping attention during the appeal. The Court held that factual controversies not argued during the original hearing and seemingly abandoned cannot serve as grounds to invoke review jurisdiction, particularly when no case is made out within the confines of the applicable procedural provisions. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions in limine, reaffirming that failure to press a point at the appellate stage precludes its agitation in review.
Questions settled- Can a factual controversy not argued during the original appeal be raised as a ground in a review petition?
- Whether review jurisdiction can be invoked on a point abandoned or not pressed during the hearing of earlier appeals?
- Does an order passed by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner without prior permission of the Additional Settlement Commissioner warrant review when the point was never urged at the appellate stage?
- VOLKART (KARACHI) STAFF UNION vs VOLKART (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI1979 PLC 142 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-01-11Read full judgment →
- VASDEV vs GENERAL PUBLIC AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Quetta 35 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order by the Senior Civil Judge, Quetta, dismissing an application for a letter of administration due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether a court, upon determining it lacks jurisdiction over such an application, is empowered or obligated to return the application for presentation to the proper forum under Order VII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, rather than dismissing it. The Court held that the dismissal was improper. It established that by virtue of Section 141, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the procedural rules governing plaints apply to miscellaneous proceedings like applications for letters of administration. Consequently, where a court determines it lacks jurisdiction before adjudicating the matter on its merits, it is legally obligated to return the application for presentation to the competent court. This principle ensures that litigants are not deprived of relief on technical grounds, particularly when a fresh application would be time-barred. The impugned order was set aside, and the application was ordered to be returned to the appellant for presentation to the proper court.
Questions settled- Does Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to applications for the grant of a letter of administration?
- Can a court return an application for presentation to the proper court after determining it lacks jurisdiction, rather than dismissing it?
- Does Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 make the procedure for plaints applicable to miscellaneous proceedings?
- Is a court required to return a plaint or application if the lack of jurisdiction is discovered before the case is decided on its merits?
- VAKIL MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER1979 CLC 406 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-28Read full judgment →
- USMATULLAH KHAN vs ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, JHELUM1979 SCMR 12 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal of the Municipal Committee, Jhelum, to renew the petitioner's licence for holding a cattle market for the year 1977-78. The petitioner contended that he had a legal right to renewal under statutory provisions and that the refusal was mala fide without a hearing. The respondents argued that the claim was based on contract, that the petitioner had already filed a civil suit, and that the financial year in dispute had already expired, rendering the issuance of a retrospective licence impossible. The Supreme Court held that since the period in dispute had already expired, neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court could issue a direction for the renewal of the licence with retrospective effect, and the appropriate remedy, if any, was to seek damages or compensation through a civil court. The Court declined to examine the broader legal questions to avoid pre-empting the jurisdiction of the civil court where the matter was already pending.
Questions settled- Can a court issue a direction in writ jurisdiction for the renewal of an expired licence with retrospective effect?
- Is a writ petition an appropriate remedy when the disputed financial year has already expired?
- Does a person have a vested right to the issuance or renewal of a municipal licence which is within the discretion of the licensor?
- Should constitutional jurisdiction be invoked when a civil suit regarding the same contractual dispute is already pending?
- USMAN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 357 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-31Read full judgment →
- UNITED SUGAR MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUKKUR AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Karachi 410 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by United Sugar Mills Ltd. against an ex parte order dated 09.12.1978 passed by the District Magistrate, Sukkur under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The impugned order prohibited the transport of sugar-cane from Sukkur District toward Punjab to preserve supply for two regional sugar mills located outside Sukkur. The High Court considered whether Section 144 Cr.P.C. could be invoked to enforce policy goals or statutory schemes under the Sugar Factories Control Act 1950, and whether an ex parte order was permissible without local imminent danger.
The High Court held that Section 144 Cr.P.C. does not grant arbitrary power and can only be invoked where conditions like immediate prevention or speedy remedy exist to avert local danger, injury, or public tranquility breaches. Protecting supply for mills outside the District or securing lower prices lacked a nexus with Section 144 objectives. Furthermore, non-compliance with notice requirements rendered the ex parte order illegal. The Court declared the impugned order without lawful authority and set it aside.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate issue an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. to assist facilities outside his territorial district where no imminent breach of peace exists within his jurisdiction?
- Does the availability of specific statutory penalties under special legislation like the Sugar Factories Control Act prevent the use of Section 144 Cr.P.C. to enforce that legislation?
- Are ex parte orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C. valid where no emergency exists and notice could have been served under Section 134 Cr.P.C.?
- Can a High Court entertain a constitutional petition against an illegal order without the petitioner first exhausting statutory review remedies under Section 144(4) Cr.P.C.?
- UNITED DISTRIBUTORS LTD., KARACHI vs ABDUL SHAKIR KHAN AND ANOTHER1979 PLC 304 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-12-12Read full judgment →
- UMAR JEHAN, vs The STATE1979 SCMR 186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and death sentence for murder. The core legal question concerns the reliability of a child witness's testimony and whether a conviction can be sustained on such evidence, particularly when the trial court failed to record the specific questions and answers used to determine the child's competence. The Supreme Court held that while it is a rule of prudence that a conviction should not be based on the solitary, uncorroborated testimony of a child due to the risk of tutoring, the conviction in this case was sustainable because the child's evidence was amply corroborated by independent witnesses, evidence of motive, and the appellant's abscondence. The Court emphasized that while trial judges should record the questions and answers used to assess a child's competence for the benefit of appellate review, the failure to do so does not automatically invalidate the conviction if the child's evidence is otherwise credible and corroborated. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the sentence intact.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be based on the solitary testimony of a child witness?
- Does the failure of a trial judge to record the questions and answers used to determine a child's competence automatically invalidate the conviction?
- Is it necessary for the prosecution to examine every witness present at the scene of the crime to avoid an adverse inference?
- UMAR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 917 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-28Read full judgment →
- TUFAIL vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 673 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-07Read full judgment →
- TUFAIL MUHAMMAD. vs ABDUL RAHIM, ETC.S1979S C M R 71 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review application filed against the Supreme Court's order dismissing a petition for leave to appeal, which had challenged a Lahore High Court order quashing a private criminal complaint under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned whether gross delay in filing a private complaint after the cancellation of a police FIR warrants the quashment of criminal proceedings, and whether grounds for review were established based on alleged inconsistencies with prior apex court precedents. The Supreme Court held that the review application disclosed no valid grounds for review and was merely an attempt to re-argue the previous submissions. The Court concluded that the gross delay of over a year and a half in instituting the private complaint justified the quashment of charges, distinguishing the cited precedents on facts and relevance. The key principle laid down is that unexplained gross delay in filing a private criminal complaint following the cancellation of a police report constitutes a valid ground for quashing proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether gross delay in filing a private criminal complaint after the cancellation of a police FIR justifies the quashment of proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a review application lie merely to re-argue submissions previously considered and dismissed by the Court?
- TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI vs Syed MUZAMMIL HUSSAIN1979 CLC 64 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-12Read full judgment →
- TRIBAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LAHORE vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH CHIEF1979 PLD Lahore 206 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-27Read full judgment →
- TOTA KHAN vs VTH SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Karachi 97 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-21Read full judgment →
- TIMSAL ASKARI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1979 P Cr. L J 309 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-20Read full judgment →
- THE THAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD. vs TIE BANK OF BAHAWALPUR LTD.1979 SCMR 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from execution proceedings initiated by the Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd. against a judgment-debtor, Abdul Qayyum Arif. The petitioner, Thal Engineering Industries Ltd., sought to challenge the attachment and subsequent auction sale of a factory, claiming ownership distinct from the judgment-debtor. The Executing Court dismissed the objection, finding that the petitioner and the judgment-debtor were not separate legal entities. The Lahore High Court, treating the appeal as a revision, upheld this decision. The Supreme Court addressed whether the petitioner could maintain the objection petition and whether the lower courts erred in their findings. The Supreme Court held that because the petitioner and the judgment-debtor were indistinguishable entities, the petitioner was precluded from raising the objection. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that while courts should lean toward adjudication over technicalities, no interference was warranted here as the objection was substantively meritless. The key principle established is that an entity indistinguishable from a judgment-debtor cannot maintain an objection petition to challenge the attachment of property in execution proceedings, as such claims must be raised by distinct third-party stakeholders.
Questions settled- Can an entity that is indistinguishable from a judgment-debtor maintain an objection petition against the attachment of property in execution proceedings?
- Should an appellate court allow an appeal to be treated as a revision and subsequently revert to treating it as an appeal if the interests of justice require?
- Is a corporate body that is found to be the same legal entity as the judgment-debtor barred from challenging the auction of property attached in execution of a decree against that debtor?
- THE STATE vs ZAHIR SHAH Accused1979 PLD Peshawar 174 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-07-27Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs TUFAIL MUHAMMAD1979 P Cr. L J 707 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-22Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB And Another1979 P Cr. L J 927 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-09Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD MUNIR AND 4 Others1979 P Cr. L J 797 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-07Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs MOHAMMAD YOUSAF AND 3 Others1979 P Cr. L J 665 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arose out of suo motu notice issued by the High Court to resolve conflicting bail orders and consider the cancellation of bail granted to four co-accused respondents in a case registered under Sections 376 and 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal issue was the duty of counsel and litigants to disclose previous or pending bail petitions of co-accused in the same case, and the effect of obtaining conflicting bail orders from different Benches due to non-disclosure. The High Court reaffirmed the binding principles laid down in Abdul Ghafoor v. The State, emphasizing that subsequent bail petitions in the same case must be placed before the same Judge who earlier dealt with a co-accused's petition to ensure harmony and prevent suppression of facts. Counsel conceded the procedural non-compliance. Consequently, the High Court recalled its previous orders granting bail to two respondents and set aside the Additional Sessions Judge's order granting bail to the remaining two respondents, thereby cancelling the bail of all four respondents.
Questions settled- Is it mandatory for an advocate and an accused person to ascertain and disclose whether earlier bail petitions have been filed or decided in the same case regarding co-accused?
- Whether subsequent bail applications in the same criminal case must be placed before the same Bench that earlier dismissed a co-accused's bail application?
- Can bail granted to an accused be cancelled if obtained from a different Bench without disclosing that a co-accused's bail petition had already been dismissed in the same case?
- THE STATE vs Mian MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ1979 P Cr. L J 46 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-16Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs LAL PASAND AND 4 Omeits1979 PLD Peshawar 48 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-01-26Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs IQBAL HUSSAIN1979 P Cr. L J 774 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD ETC.1979 P Cr. L J 1100 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-09Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs ATAULLAH AND 3 OTHERS1979 P Cr. L J 170 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-14Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1979 P Cr. L J 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-10Read full judgment →
- THE STATE vs ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER1979 P Cr. L J 891 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-10Read full judgment →
- THE STATE AND ANOTHER vs DILLU1979 P Cr. L J 793 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-15Read full judgment →
- THE SARGODHA CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD., SARGODHA vs MESSRS1979 SCMR 528 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which set aside the executing court's order regarding the rateable distribution of decretal amounts. Three decrees were passed against the predecessor-in-interest of certain respondents in favour of multiple decree-holders, including the petitioner. The executing court consolidated the execution cases and ordered rateable distribution of the amount deposited by the Rehabilitation Department. The High Court accepted a revision petition filed by aggrieved respondents and set aside the distribution order. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to authoritatively interpret and construe Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, while dismissing the petitioner's stay application. The core legal question concerns the proper application and interpretation of rateable distribution under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Questions settled- Whether Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permits the rateable distribution of assets among multiple decree-holders under the circumstances of consolidated execution proceedings?
- Does the High Court have revisional jurisdiction to set aside an executing court's order regarding the rateable distribution of deposited funds?
- THE PUNJAB CLUB, LAHORE vs HABIB ULLAH TARAR1979 CLC 742 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an appellate order granting a temporary injunction to the respondent, whose membership in the petitioner club was terminated following his dismissal from public service. The core legal question was whether the respondent’s dismissal resulted in the ipso facto cessation of his club membership under Article 21 of the Articles of Association, notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal against that dismissal. The Court held that the Articles of Association clearly mandated the immediate cessation of membership upon dismissal, and the pendency of an appeal did not suspend this effect. The Court found that the lower appellate court acted with material irregularity by requiring the dismissal to attain finality before the clause could operate. The key principle laid down is that a private association may validly prescribe qualifications and conditions for membership, including automatic termination upon specific events like dismissal from public service, and such provisions are not inherently against public policy or unreasonable restraints on trade, provided they are consistent with the association's governing documents.
Questions settled- Does the dismissal of a member from public service result in the immediate, ipso facto cessation of their club membership under the Articles of Association?
- Can a court declare a provision in a club's Articles of Association void on the grounds of public policy if it mandates membership termination upon dismissal from public service?
- Does the pendency of an appeal against a dismissal order prevent the operation of a clause in a club's Articles of Association that mandates automatic termination of membership upon dismissal?
- Is the principle of audi alteram partem applicable to the automatic termination of club membership pursuant to a specific provision in the Articles of Association?
- THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR vs Ch. MUHAMMAD ALI1979 CLC 523 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order passed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act raising the compensation for acquired land from Rs. 1,950 to Rs. 4,500 per kanal, along with 15 percent compulsory acquisition charges and interest from the date of the Collector's award. The core legal question concerns the correct determination of the market value of the acquired land based on comparable sales and evidence, and the appropriate rate of interest payable on enhanced compensation. The Lahore High Court held that the evidence on record, including mutations and oral testimony, fully justified the valuation of Rs. 4,500 per kanal fixed by the lower court, as the land was well-situated and of prime category. However, regarding interest, the Court held that pursuant to the amendment introduced by Act III of 1969 to section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, the rate of compound interest on the excess compensation must be eight per centum rather than six per centum. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed to modify the rate of interest.
Questions settled- Whether the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector can be enhanced on the basis of comparable sales and mutation evidence?
- What is the correct rate of interest payable on the excess amount of compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act after the 1969 amendment?
- Can the High Court interfere with a concurrent finding of fact regarding land valuation arrived at by the lower court based on evidence?
- THE EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD, GOVERN MENT OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE1979 PLD Lahore 903 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-13Read full judgment →
- THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs PUNJAB1979 CLC 492 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-18Read full judgment →
- THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE, ETC. THE DEPUTY1979 SCMR 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises three petitions for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 8-10-1976, which had set aside the compulsory retirement of the respondents. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether departmental delay caused by examining a matter at various governmental levels constitutes a sufficient ground for the condonation of delay in filing petitions. The Court held that the petitions were barred by time by 45 days and that departmental delays do not furnish a valid ground for extending the period of limitation, reiterating that the government must be treated on par with ordinary litigants regarding limitation laws. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay were rejected and the petitions were dismissed as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that governmental departments cannot claim preferential treatment under the law of limitation, and each day of delay must be properly explained regardless of administrative processes.
Questions settled- Does departmental examination of a matter at various government levels constitute a sufficient ground for condonation of delay?
- Can the government claim a different standard than an ordinary litigant under the law of limitation?
- Must each day of delay be properly and sufficiently explained when seeking an extension of time?
- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (WEST), KARACHI vs MESSRS JUPITER1979 PLD Karachi 207 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-27Read full judgment →
- THE CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE, BOLAN MEDICAL COLLEGE, QUETTA1979 SCMR 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan accepting a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, filed by respondent No. 1 against the rejection of her medical college admission by the Selection Committee of Bolan Medical College, Quetta. The core legal question was whether the Selection Committee could legally look behind a valid domicile certificate issued by the District Magistrate and reject it on the ground that an earlier certificate from another district had existed and was later cancelled. The Supreme Court held that the Selection Committee had no lawful authority to sit in appeal over the domicile certificate or the District Magistrate's cancellation of the prior certificate, and that overwhelming documentary evidence proved the permanent residence of the applicant's family. The Court also held that while the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 199 by dictating internal management directives such as creating a supernumerary seat, the Supreme Court would decline to disturb the already admitted students to prevent irreparable injustice. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a Selection Committee for college admissions can go behind a domicile certificate issued by a competent District Magistrate?
- Does a High Court under Article 199 have the authority to direct the creation of a special supernumerary seat or interfere with the internal management of an educational institution?
- Can a citizen hold successive domicile certificates following a change of residence and lawful cancellation of a prior certificate?
- THE ADMINISTRATOR AND Another vs LT. COL. (RETD:) J. D. MALIK1979 SCMR 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order passed by the Lahore High Court, which directed the petitioners to hear the respondent and resolve a dispute regarding his service terms and emoluments in accordance with a prior Supreme Court judgment. The respondent, a former member of the West Pakistan Co-operative Board, had previously litigated his entitlement to specific salary and allowances, resulting in a Supreme Court ruling that established his entitlement to a monthly salary of Rs. 1,400 plus his Army pension, while denying claims for additional allowances or privileges. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s directive for the petitioners to hear the respondent and decide the dispute afresh in light of the Supreme Court’s earlier findings was legally sound. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order was eminently just and fair, as it merely facilitated the implementation of the Supreme Court’s previous decision. The Court affirmed that there was no valid grievance against providing the respondent an opportunity to be heard in the disposal of his outstanding service dispute.
Questions settled- Is a High Court order directing an authority to hear a party and decide a dispute in light of a prior Supreme Court judgment legally justifiable?
- Does a former member of the West Pakistan Co-operative Board have a right to claim allowances beyond the salary stipulated in their initial contract of appointment?
- THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs KHALAS KHAN ETC.1979 PLD Lahore 834 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
- TEXTILE, CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD., HYDERABAD vs MEHBOOB ALI AND 18 OTHERS1979 PLC 209 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-11-27Read full judgment →
- TANWEER AHMAD KHAN vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SANGHAR AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Karachi 732 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged an order issued by the District Magistrate cancelling his firearm licence under Martial Law Order No. 64. The core legal question was whether the cancellation of a licence under this Martial Law Order, which requires the authority to be satisfied that the licensee is an 'undesirable person,' necessitates adherence to the principles of natural justice, specifically the provision of a show-cause notice and an opportunity for a hearing. The Court held that the impugned order was passed without lawful authority because it was issued on a cyclostyled pro forma without the District Magistrate applying his mind or recording a finding of undesirability. The Court emphasized that since the cancellation carries a stigma of being an 'undesirable person,' the law implicitly requires an inquiry and an opportunity for the licensee to be heard before such an adverse order is passed. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, declaring the cancellation order to be without lawful authority, noting that the lack of stated grounds also rendered any potential appeal ineffective.
Questions settled- Does the cancellation of a firearm licence under Martial Law Order No. 64 require the authority to provide the licensee with a show-cause notice and an opportunity to be heard?
- Is an order cancelling a firearm licence valid if it is issued on a cyclostyled pro forma without the authority recording specific findings regarding the licensee's undesirability?
- Can an order be considered passed without lawful authority if it fails to disclose the grounds for the adverse action taken against the petitioner?
- TALIB HUSSAIN AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 197 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-12Read full judgment →
- TALIB ALI vs THE STATE1979 PLD Lahore 173 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-24Read full judgment →
- TALEH MAND vs QUDRATULAH Etc.S1979 SCMR 574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for the murder of one Mehnga by poisoning. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence regarding extra-judicial confessions and the corroborative value of recovery evidence in a criminal trial. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no error of law in disbelieving the recovery of arsenic and noting material discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses regarding the extra-judicial confessions. Since the tainted evidence of extra-judicial confessions lacked reliable corroboration, the High Court rightly granted the benefit of the doubt to the appellants. The key principle laid down is that extra-judicial confessions, being a weak type of evidence, require strong and independent corroboration, and where the sole corroborative piece of evidence (recovery) fails to inspire confidence, the conviction cannot be sustained.
Questions settled- Can an extra-judicial confession be relied upon for conviction without independent corroboration?
- Whether evidence of recovery that is self-contradictory and lacks credibility can furnish valid corroboration for an extra-judicial confession?
- Does evidence of motive coming from the same witnesses whose testimony requires corroboration have any corroborative value?
- TAJ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 10 · Sindh High Court · 1972-09-24Read full judgment →
- TAJ MUHAMMAD vs COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD DIVISION AKD 7 OTHERS1979 CLC 237 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the appellate order of the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, dismissing the petitioner's appeal regarding the issuance of Permanent Residence Certificates (P.R.C.s) to private respondents for medical college admissions. The core legal questions concerned the computation of limitation periods for appeals against P.R.C. grants where applicants had no prior notice, and the correct legal interpretation of permanent residence versus domicile under the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971. The Sindh High Court held that limitation for filing an appeal against the grant of a P.R.C. does not run from the date of the ex parte order when the aggrieved party had no notice of it, but from the date of knowledge, applying principles enunciated by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Court held that the authorities must determine permanent residence based on substantive factors rather than merely fulfilling technical domicile-based criteria under rule 6. The petition was partially allowed, setting aside the Commissioner's orders as to certain respondents and remanding the matters for a decision on merits, while upholding the P.R.C. for another whose permanent residence was substantiated.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for filing an appeal against the grant of a Permanent Residence Certificate run from the date of the certificate when the aggrieved party had no prior notice of the proceedings?
- Are domicile and permanent residence interchangeable concepts under the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971?
- Must the appellate authority examine evidence of permanent residence beyond merely satisfying the conditions laid down in rule 6 of the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971?
- TAJ MUHAMMAD AND 2 Other/ vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Quetta 172 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-04-13Read full judgment →
- TAJ MUHAMMAD AND 2 Others vs ALAM SHER AND Another1979 P Cr. L J 997 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-01Read full judgment →
- TAJ DIN vs NUR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1979 CLC 530 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-27Read full judgment →
- TAHIR RASHID vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1979 PLC 547 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-11-11Read full judgment →
- TAHIR ALI vs The STATE1979 SCMR 50 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the High Court's refusal to grant bail to the petitioner, who was facing trial for rape under Section 376/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner committed rape upon the victim at his construction site, supported by evidence including the victim's injuries, the petitioner's scratches, and a semen-stained chadar recovered from the scene. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in denying bail given the prima facie evidence connecting the accused to the crime. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction based on the material on record, and therefore, interference was not warranted. While dismissing the petition, the Court cautioned that the trial court must ignore the High Court's generalized observations regarding the credibility of an unmarried woman's allegations in that region. The trial court was directed to decide the case strictly on the evidence presented, ensuring a fair adjudication independent of societal assumptions about the victim's character or reputation.
Questions settled- Does the presence of prima facie evidence connecting an accused to a crime justify the refusal of bail?
- Should a trial court consider generalized observations regarding a victim's character made by a High Court in a bail order?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by a High Court in bail matters?
- Syed ZIA ALI vs UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER1979 PLC 239 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-10-24Read full judgment →
- Syed ZAWAR HUSSAIN AND 6 Other vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1979 PLD Supreme Court 924 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning the transfer of urban property in Peshawar, previously owned by a Hindu gentleman who migrated at Partition, which respondent No. 6 claimed as an industrial concern (sawmill) established by his late father under pre-Partition leases. The petitioners, claiming as allottees of agricultural land, challenged the transfer. The core legal questions involved whether the disputed land constituted agricultural land or urban immovable property utilized as an industrial concern, and whether the petitioners had the requisite locus standi to invoke constitutional jurisdiction after withdrawing their departmental appeal. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the settlement authorities and the High Court established that the property was converted to industrial use prior to Partition, rendering it urban property eligible for transfer to respondent No. 6 under the Settlement laws. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioners lacked locus standi due to their conduct, including the withdrawal of their departmental appeal and failure to participate in prior public auctions. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether land situated within municipal limits and converted to industrial use prior to Partition can be treated as agricultural land under settlement laws?
- Does a party who withdraws their appeal before the departmental authorities retain the locus standi to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Are findings of fact regarding the nature and use of property based on site inspection and documentary evidence open to interference?
- Whether an evacuee property housing a non-evacuee industrial installation is transferable to the person in possession under the settlement scheme?
- Syed ZAIGHAM HUSSAIN AND Others vs Syed KAISAR HUSSAIN AND Anoters1979 SCMR 463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a second appeal under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, regarding the ejectment of the petitioners from residential property. The core legal question concerns whether separate notices under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and separate ejectment applications were mandatory when the heirs of the original occupant were in joint possession as one family rather than separate portions. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioners admitted in their earlier replies that they were living as one family in joint possession, separate notices and separate ejectment petitions were not required. The petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless, affirming the principle that joint occupants constituting a single family unit do not necessitate individual statutory notices or separate ejectment proceedings where admissions corroborate joint possession.
Questions settled- Whether separate notices under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 are required for joint occupants of a property?
- Is it mandatory to file separate ejectment applications against multiple heirs residing in joint possession as one family?
- Does an admission of joint possession in replies to statutory notices preclude the requirement for individual notices?
- Syed ZAHID HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN1979 CLC 502 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-07Read full judgment →
- Syed WAJI-UL-HASSAN ZAIDI vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, CITY JHELUM AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Supreme Court 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had challenged the registration of a criminal case and subsequent police investigation. The core legal question was whether an executive inquiry conducted by an Assistant Commissioner under the orders of a Deputy Commissioner regarding police high-handedness amounted to 'taking cognizance' of an offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby barring the subsequent direction for the registration of a First Information Report (F.I.R.). The Supreme Court held that the inquiry conducted in an executive capacity did not constitute taking cognizance of an offence, and that any member of the public or authority aware of the commission of a cognizable offence can lawfully set the criminal law in motion by directing or lodging an information, barring specific statutory restrictions. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- What amounts to taking cognizance of an offence by a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an inquiry conducted by an executive authority under administrative orders constitute taking judicial cognizance?
- Can any member of the public or a Magistrate set the criminal law in motion by reporting the commission of a cognizable offence?
- Whether the direction by an executive officer to register an F.I.R. following an administrative inquiry is legally valid?
- Syed WAJI UL HASSAN ZAIDI vs THE STATE1979 SCMR 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by a retired Superintendent of Police seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 148, 149, 452, 376, 366, 365, 364, 363, 362, and 366 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the serious allegations of abduction, molestation, and rape following a land dispute, and whether the High Court erred in refusing bail. The Supreme Court held that the petition had no merit and dismissed it, affirming the High Court's order. The Court laid down the principle that at the pre-trial bail stage, courts should not sift prosecution evidence in minute detail, particularly when abductees have been recovered and statements recorded implicate the accused, leaving the evaluation of evidence to the trial.
Questions settled- Whether a court should sift prosecution evidence in minute detail at the stage of deciding a post-arrest bail application?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail where abductees are recovered from various places and implicate the accused in serious offenses?
- Does the involvement of an accused in a high-profile abduction and molestation case bar the grant of discretionary relief of bail before trial?
- Syed SHAFIQUE HUSSAIN vs Syed ABUL QASIM1979 PLD Karachi 22 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenges the appellate court's dismissal of a suit seeking a declaration that a power of attorney was irrevocable. The core legal question was whether the power of attorney, executed alongside an agreement to sell land, constituted a 'power coupled with an interest' under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872, thereby preventing its revocation. The court held that the power of attorney was indeed irrevocable. It determined that the applicant, having paid consideration and taken possession of the land with rights to its usufruct, held a substantial beneficial interest in the subject matter. The court established that Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872 protects an agent's interest when the agency is created to secure that interest. The key principle laid down is that an agent’s beneficial interest in the property forming the subject matter of the agency need not be expressly stated in the power of attorney; it may be inferred from the document, the course of dealings, and surrounding circumstances, rendering the agency irrevocable.
Questions settled- When does a power of attorney become irrevocable under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872?
- Must a beneficial interest be expressly mentioned in a power of attorney for it to be considered irrevocable?
- Can an agreement to sell land be used to establish the existence of a beneficial interest in a power of attorney?
- Syed SHABBIR AHMED SHAH vs PAKISTAN 1HROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERN1979 PLD Karachi 68 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arises from constitutional petitions challenging the seizure and detention of allegedly smuggled motor cars by the Pakistan Coast Guards. The petitioners contested the jurisdiction of the Pakistan Coast Guards under the Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973, arguing that their authority to seize goods is strictly confined to the prevention of smuggling. The core legal question was whether motor cars, which were not specifically listed in clause (s) of Section 2 of the Customs Act, 1969 nor notified thereunder by the Federal Government, fall within the legal definition of 'smuggling' merely because their import is prohibited or restricted under another law. The High Court held that the offence of smuggling under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969 is strictly limited to goods specified in that provision or subsequently notified by the Federal Government. The Court affirmed its prior precedent, declaring that goods whose import is prohibited under other laws fall under Section 156(9) rather than Section 156(8) of the Customs Act, 1969. Consequently, the Court held the seizure of motor cars by the Coast Guards to be without jurisdiction and allowed the petitions.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of the Pakistan Coast Guards to seize goods is limited strictly to items defined as 'smuggled' under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969?
- Does the definition of 'smuggling' under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969 include goods whose import is prohibited under other laws if they are not explicitly specified or notified under Section 2(s)?
- Can the Pakistan Coast Guards seize and detain motor cars on allegations of smuggling if motor cars have not been notified by the Federal Government under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969?
- Syed SARDAR SHAH vs HYESONS SUGAR MILLS, KHANPUR1979 PLC 275 · Labour Court · 1978-10-03Read full judgment →
- Syed RAHIM vs MESSRS FAZAL SHAFIQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI1979 PLC 163 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-04-06Read full judgment →
- Syed NAWAB, SHAH vs Mst. MAJEEDAH KHATOON AND Other1979 PLD Lahore 618 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-04Read full judgment →
- Syed MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND Another vs SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL1979 PLD Lahore 340 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-15Read full judgment →
- Syed MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN SHAH BOKHARI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 668 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-28Read full judgment →
- Syed MURTAZA vs REHIMAN AND 5 Other1979 PLD Lahore 538 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-14Read full judgment →