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.
- SADRUDDIN vs Messrs MITCHELL's FRUIT FARMS LTD., KARACHI1979 PLD Karachi 694 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-12Read full judgment →
- SADIQ ALI vs ABDUR RASHID AND 5 Other1979 SCMR 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a High Court judgment that reduced the death sentences of certain respondents to life imprisonment following their conviction for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondents had been convicted for double murder and causing injuries while acting as members of an unlawful assembly. The complainant challenged this reduction, arguing that under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, once the common object of an unlawful assembly is established, all members should receive the death penalty. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while Section 149 establishes liability for the offence, it does not dictate the sentence. The court affirmed that sentencing discretion remains vested in the judiciary under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Furthermore, the Court found the High Court’s decision to reduce the sentences was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, as it was based on significant discrepancies between oral and medical testimony regarding the attribution of fatal shots. The principle established is that Section 149 does not remove judicial discretion in sentencing for murder.
Questions settled- Does Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 mandate the death penalty for all members of an unlawful assembly upon a murder conviction?
- Does the court retain discretion under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to award life imprisonment instead of the death penalty in cases involving Section 149?
- Can a High Court reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment based on discrepancies between oral and medical testimony?
- SABIR HUSSAIN KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU &1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 14 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-12-12Read full judgment →
- SABIR DIN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY Of DEFENCE AND Other1979 SCMR 555 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed a writ petition in a service matter on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner, a Deputy Assistant Military Estates Officer, sought to challenge his reversion order, which was recommended by a committee in Rawalpindi and approved by the Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Rawalpindi. The core legal question was whether the Peshawar High Court possessed the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition where the impugned administrative action occurred in Rawalpindi and Muzaffarabad, and the relevant authorities were not located within the Peshawar High Court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, holding that the Peshawar High Court correctly refused jurisdiction because neither the impugned action nor the authority taking it fell within its territorial limits under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that for a High Court to exercise writ jurisdiction, the impugned action or the authority must be within its territorial jurisdiction, and administrative links alone do not confer such authority.
Questions settled- Does a High Court have territorial jurisdiction to issue a writ against an authority or action located outside its territorial limits?
- Does the mere administrative link of an office within a specific circle confer territorial jurisdiction on a High Court where the impugned action occurred elsewhere?
- Is a High Court justified in dismissing a writ petition in limine if the impugned action and the authority taking it are outside its territorial jurisdiction?
- SABAHUDDIN Alias CHHABI vs Thestate1979 PLD Lahore 220 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
- SAAT MALOOK vs ROZI KHAN1979 SCMR 593 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a pre-emption suit where the parties entered into a compromise decree requiring the petitioner to pay the sale price by a specific date. The petitioner failed to pay on the due date, alleging the respondent's absence prevented the transaction, and subsequently deposited the funds the following day. The trial court dismissed the suit for non-compliance. The core legal question was whether the court could extend the time for payment under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the trial court acted legally in dismissing the application without allowing the parties to conclude their evidence. The Supreme Court held that Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not permit the extension of time for payment stipulated in a compromise decree. However, the Court ruled that the trial court committed a legal error by dismissing the application without providing the petitioner an opportunity to complete his evidence or the respondent an opportunity to rebut it. The case was remanded for a full evidentiary hearing.
Questions settled- Can a court extend the time for payment stipulated in a compromise decree under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is it legally permissible for a trial court to dismiss an application without allowing the parties to complete their evidence and produce rebuttal evidence?
- Does a lower appellate court have the authority to treat a revision petition as an appeal?
- S. W. H. JAFRI vs MUHAMMAD SALIM SHAIKH AND 2 OTHERS1979 PLC 431 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from an order passed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's labour application as time-barred. The petitioner, a bank clerk dismissed from service following allegations of misappropriation and forgery, challenged the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the limitation period under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether the lower forums correctly computed the period of limitation based on the date of the petitioner's initial grievance notice. The court held that the concurrent factual findings regarding the service of the grievance notice and the resultant computation of limitation were unexceptionable and could not be reopened under constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact recorded by labour forums on the question of limitation based on evidence will not be disturbed in a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.
Questions settled- Whether an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 can be dismissed as time-barred based on the first grievance notice served by the employee?
- Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding limitation be interfered with under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- S. NIZAMUDDIN QADRI vs THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF WEST1979 CLC 217 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-07Read full judgment →
- S. NIAZ ALI SHAH vs SETTLEMENT AUTHORITIES AND Another1979 SCMR 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1965-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, which upheld the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition regarding the transfer of a plot under settlement laws. The appellant, a claimant displaced person, contended that he had constructed a permanent structure (a bus stand) on the allotted plot and that the Settlement Authorities ignored relevant evidence while finding the structure to be temporary. The core legal questions involved whether findings of fact by Settlement Authorities based on spot inspection were unassailable in writ jurisdiction, and whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's review of an auction order was a valid exercise of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of the construction were supported by spot inspections and that any initial procedural irregularity by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in transferring the property was cured by the Settlement Commissioner's valid exercise of suo motu revision powers under the relevant statute. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a finding of fact of the Settlement Authorities arrived at by ignoring a mass of relevant evidence was unassailable in the writ jurisdiction as held by the High Court?
- Whether the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner reviewing his order for the auction of the plot was an order made in the valid exercise of his jurisdiction?
- S. M. ZAFAR vs AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT AND ANOIHER1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 85 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-03-30Read full judgment →
- S. M. TAHIR ALI vs THS STATE1979 P Cr. L J 990 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-20Read full judgment →
- S. FARZAND ALI SHAH vs ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1979 PLC 433 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-19Read full judgment →
- S. AZAM HUSSAIN AND 30 Other vs MANAGING DISECTOR, M. C. P., LAHORE1979 PLC 347 · Labour Court · 1979-07-01Read full judgment →
- S. ATIQAD HUSSAIN NAQVI AND 5 OTHERS vs CHIEF OFFICER, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1979 CLC 391 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-20Read full judgment →
- S. ALI RAZA SHAH NAQVI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND Etc.1979 PLD Supreme Court 856 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a college professor, challenged the dismissal of his service appeal by the Sind Service Tribunal, which had rejected his claim for a higher grade. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellant had exhausted mandatory departmental remedies and whether the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction over his claim for promotion. The Supreme Court held that the appeal before the Tribunal was incompetent because the appellant failed to file a departmental appeal to the Chief Secretary against the impugned order, as required by law. Additionally, the Court affirmed that, under the governing statute, no appeal lies to a Service Tribunal against a decision determining a civil servant's fitness for promotion or higher grade. The key principles laid down are that the exhaustion of departmental remedies is a strict statutory prerequisite for the maintainability of an appeal before a Service Tribunal, and that Service Tribunals are expressly barred from adjudicating matters relating to the fitness of a civil servant for promotion or higher grade.
Questions settled- Is a service appeal before a Service Tribunal maintainable if the civil servant has not exhausted the required departmental appeal process?
- Does a Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate an appeal against an order determining a civil servant's fitness for promotion or a higher grade?
- Can ignorance of the law be accepted as a valid excuse for failing to file a mandatory departmental appeal?
- Rona MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1979 PLC (C.S.T.) 29 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- RIZWAN CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY AND Other1979 SCMR 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of Civil Review Petitions Nos. 34 and 35 of 1971, directed against a previous order of the Supreme Court which had set aside a High Court order and declared the sale of land by the Custodian of Evacuee Property to the petitioner as without lawful authority. The core legal questions involved whether certain Khasra numbers were excluded from the acquisition scheme, whether a compromise entered into during the appeal was binding without concurrence, and whether the construction of provisions of the Town Improvement Act, 1922 and Ordinance 15 of 1949 constituted errors apparent on the face of the record warranting review. The Supreme Court held that new grounds not raised at the original hearing cannot be entertained in review, that the construction placed on statutes by the Court cannot be challenged as an error apparent on the face of the record merely because an alternative interpretation is possible, and that a compromise affecting interested parties requires their concurrence. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a new ground not raised at the original hearing of the appeal be agitated in a civil review petition?
- Whether an erroneous construction of a statute by a court constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record inviting interference in review jurisdiction?
- Is a compromise entered into during the pendency of an appeal effective without the concurrence of a necessary party having legal interest in the subject matter?
- RIFAQAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR QURESHI1979 PLD Lahore 444 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-12Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AND Another vs RAZI MUHAMMAD1979 PLD Karachi 227 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code was directed against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Mirpurkhas, which decreed the respondent's suit for possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The core legal question was whether a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act lies only in cases of forcible dispossession, or whether it extends to dispossession otherwise than in due course of law, such as when temporary possession given for repairs is not returned. The Sindh High Court held that section 9 applies to dispossession otherwise than in due course of law, which encompasses cases where possession is withheld after being handed over temporarily for a limited purpose, and actual physical possession is not a strict pre-condition if constructive possession or the right to use remains. The court laid down the principle that a person temporarily permitting another to use premises for a specific purpose remains in possession for the purposes of section 9, and refusal to return such premises constitutes dispossession otherwise than in due course of law.
Questions settled- Does section 9 of the Specific Relief Act apply only where a person has been forcibly dispossessed of immovable property?
- Can a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act be maintained when possession was temporarily handed over for a specific purpose like repairs?
- Is actual and physical possession an essential pre-condition for filing a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act?
- RIAZ & KANDAWALLA LTD., KARACHI vs TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI1979 PLD Karachi 300 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit before the Sindh High Court involved a dispute regarding the calculation of the 'cost price' of imported sugar under a government notification. The plaintiff company imported a consignment of sugar, which was subsequently required by a West Pakistan Government notification issued under the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, to be sold to the Trading Corporation of Pakistan at 'cost price plus 6% profit thereon.' The core legal question was whether the 6% profit was payable strictly on the C.I.F. value of the goods or on the total landed cost including customs duties, sales tax, and other clearance charges. The court held that in construing statutes and delegated legislation encroaching upon private property and contractual rights, a strict interpretation in favour of the subject must be adopted. The court decided that 'cost price' meant the total imported cost of the goods to the importer, inclusive of customs duties and other necessary expenses incurred to make the goods ready for sale. The court further held that the plaintiff had not waived its right to claim the full profit. The suit was consequently decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
Questions settled- Whether the expression 'cost price' in a statutory notification for compulsory acquisition of imported goods includes customs duties, sales tax, and other clearance charges?
- Can an importer waive statutory rights regarding the calculation of a fixed price under a regulatory control statute?
- What are the principles of interpretation applicable to subordinate legislation that encroaches upon private property and contractual rights?
- RIAZ & KANDAWALLA LTD., KARACHI vs PAKISTAN AND Another1979 PLD Karachi 807 · Sindh High Court · 1975-07-31Read full judgment →
- RIASAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD ASGHAR AND 2 Other1979 SCMR 523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondents, who were accused of murder and other offences. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion perversely in granting bail despite the allegations of murder and the presence of eyewitnesses. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances of the case, noting that the investigation revealed the deceased was armed with a gun and had initiated fire, thereby invoking the right of private defence. The Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion by considering the applicability of the right of private defence under the law and the specific nature of the injuries attributed to the respondents. The Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's order, as the respondents were entitled to the concession of bail given the findings regarding the deceased's initial aggression and the lack of causal link between the co-accused's actions and the death. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's discretion in granting bail is perverse when the investigation suggests the deceased initiated the aggression?
- Does the right of private defence under Section 100 of the Pakistan Penal Code constitute a valid ground for granting bail in a murder case?
- Can bail be granted to an accused when the investigation indicates the injury inflicted by them did not cause the death of the deceased?
- REHMAT ALI vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, FAISALABAD AND 2 OTHERS--1979 P Cr. L J 562 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-17Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI vs ABDUL HAMID1979 SCMR 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil revision dismissed by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld a trial court's refusal to review a judgment based on an oath taken on the Holy Qur'an. The petitioner sought review, claiming he was unaware that the respondent's father, who took the oath, was an Ahmadi and thus allegedly legally incompetent to swear on the Holy Qur'an. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could rescind an agreement to be bound by an oath after discovering the religious affiliation of the deponent, and whether this constituted grounds for review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was aware of the respondent's father's religious affiliation at the time of the agreement and could not subsequently back out of an offer that had been accepted and acted upon. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a plea of ignorance of law regarding the validity of the oath was untenable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that parties cannot resile from binding oaths once accepted.
Questions settled- Can a party resile from an agreement to be bound by an oath on the Holy Qur'an after it has been accepted and acted upon?
- Does the discovery of a party's religious affiliation constitute a ground for review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a party successfully claim ignorance of law to invalidate an oath taken on the Holy Qur'an?
- REHMAT ALI ETC. vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), BAHAWALPUR AND 8 Other1979 SCMR 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for review of the Supreme Court's order rejecting a petition for leave to appeal, which had challenged the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition by the High Court concerning a land inheritance dispute. The core legal question revolves around whether the time spent in bona fide civil litigation could be excluded to condone laches in filing a constitutional petition, and whether a review petition can re-agitate points already decided. The Supreme Court held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction, the civil proceedings were not bona fide, and points already disposed of in the leave petition cannot be re-agitated in review. The key principle laid down is that matters already adjudicated upon cannot be reopened in review proceedings, and civil court jurisdiction is barred in settlement matters where proceedings are without jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether time spent in prosecuting civil litigation can be excluded to explain laches in filing a writ petition when the civil court lacked jurisdiction?
- Can a point already agitated and disposed of in a petition for leave to appeal be re-agitated in a review petition?
- Whether civil courts have jurisdiction in matters governed by settlement and rehabilitation laws once land is confirmed?
- REHMAT ALI AND Another vs The STATE1979 SCMR 30 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing bail to the petitioners who, along with two others, were accused of committing murder. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners were entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that the complainant subsequently resiled from his initial version in the First Information Report through a statement under Section 164 and affidavits from various family members vouched for the petitioners' innocence. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that it was difficult at this stage to say if the petitioners had committed the offence when the complainant himself disowned the prosecution case, thereby bringing the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2). The key principle laid down is that where the primary complainant resiles from the initial accusation at the bail stage, the matter may appropriately warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2), entitling the accused to the concession of bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the complainant resiles from the First Information Report?
- Can bail be granted on the basis of affidavits and statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 indicating the innocence of the accused?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence regarding the possibility of identification appropriate at the bail stage?
- REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE vs WORKERS UNION1979 PLC 278 · Labour Court · 1978-12-11Read full judgment →
- RAZA MUHAMMAD AND 5 Other vs MEMBER, BORAD OF REVENUE1979 PLD Quetta 106 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-11-19Read full judgment →
- RAZA KHAN vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD AND Another1979 SCMR 119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of an application for cancellation of bail by the Peshawar High Court. The petitioner, the complainant in a murder case, sought to cancel the bail granted to the respondent, Faqir Muhammad, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar. The core legal question was whether the lower courts exercised their discretion appropriately in granting bail, particularly given the petitioner's argument of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, despite the absence of a specific overt act attributed to the respondent in the First Information Report. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly exercised their discretion, noting that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal or factual infirmity in the bail orders. The Court affirmed that allegations of the respondent being a powerful person, existing bad relations, or delayed surrender to the police are insufficient grounds to set aside a well-reasoned bail order. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that bail discretion based on further inquiry is not to be interfered with absent compelling legal error.
Questions settled- Can bail be cancelled solely on the grounds that the accused is a powerful person or has bad relations with the complainant?
- Is a bail order granted on the basis of further inquiry subject to interference if no specific overt act is attributed to the accused?
- Does the mere allegation of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 necessitate the cancellation of bail?
- RAZA ANSARI vs MAULA BAHHSH1979 PLD Karachi 568 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
- RASHIDUDDIN QURESHI vs The STATE1979 SCMR 99 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for clarification of a previous Supreme Court order dated 28-3-1974, which had dismissed a review petition filed by the petitioner. The underlying dispute originated from a criminal complaint filed by the petitioner under sections 380, 445, 448, and 451 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging trespass and theft. The accused had successfully argued that they held possession of the disputed property pursuant to a written agreement, a fact the petitioner had previously admitted in a compromise before the Peshawar High Court. The Supreme Court had previously dismissed the petitioner's special leave petition on 9-3-1973, finding the complaint to be a pressure tactic, and subsequently dismissed the first review petition on 28-3-1974. The core legal question was whether the order dismissing the review petition required clarification. The Court held that the previous order was unambiguous and contained no error apparent on the face of the record. The application was dismissed, reaffirming that no second review application lies and that the previous findings on merits were final.
Questions settled- Does a second review application lie against an order of the Supreme Court?
- Can an application for clarification be used to re-litigate the merits of a dismissed review petition?
- Is an order dismissing a review petition subject to further clarification if it contains no ambiguity?
- RASHID RAYON MILLS, KARACHI vs YACOOB ALI1979 PLC 165 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-05-17Read full judgment →
- RASAB AND 8 OTHERS vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 615 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
- RANO vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 781 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-03Read full judgment →
- RANG ALI SHAH AND 5 Others vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 648 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-27Read full judgment →
- Rana TALEH MUHAMMAD KHAN AND Another vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHEIKHUPURA AND 12 Other1979 PLD Lahore 145 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-28Read full judgment →
- Rana MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs ROTI CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD., LAHORE1979 PLC 229 · Labour Court · 1978-01-08Read full judgment →
- Rana MUHAMMAD AJMAL KHAN vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 454 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-27Read full judgment →
- Rana IRSHAD ARMED KHAN vs ABDUR RAHIM AND Others1979 P Cr. L J 685 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-29Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 661 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-22Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN AND Another vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 184 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-28Read full judgment →
- RAIS KHAN vs SAID HANIF AND Another1979 SCMR 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Peshawar High Court cancelling the post-arrest bail granted to the petitioner. The petitioner, along with co-accused, was charged in a dying declaration and ocular evidence for a incident involving fatal gunshot injuries resulting in three deaths. Following the incident, the petitioner absconded for nearly four years while a co-accused was tried and acquitted. After surrendering, the Sessions Judge granted bail to the petitioner on the ground of further inquiry due to the co-accused's acquittal. However, the High Court cancelled the bail, holding that the acquittal of a co-accused was not a valid ground for bail given the direct mention in the dying declaration, ocular evidence, and prolonged abscondence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no impropriety in the order cancelling bail and dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the acquittal of a co-accused serves as a valid ground to grant bail to an absconding accused directly named in a dying declaration and ocular evidence?
- Whether prolonged abscondence is a relevant factor when considering the cancellation of bail granted to an accused charged with murder?
- Whether the High Court properly exercises its jurisdiction in cancelling bail granted on the ground of further inquiry when strong ocular and dying declaration evidence exists against the accused?
- RAIS AHMAD vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 175 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-22Read full judgment →
- Rai JALAL KHAN ETC vs DIVISIONAL CANAL OFFICER ETC.1979 PLD Lahore 828 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-07Read full judgment →
- Rai ATA ULLAH KHAN vs Raja ANAR KHAN AND Other1979 SCMR 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the respondent, a police inspector accused alongside other government officials of committing various offences including wrongful confinement, hurt, assault, and dacoity during a political gathering. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's discretion in granting pre-arrest bail to the accused given the nature of the allegations and delay in lodging the FIR. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercised its discretion after an elaborate discussion of all relevant factors, finding no specific attribution for grievous injuries, inordinate delay in FIR registration, and the bailable nature of most charged offences. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned discretionary order and dismissed the petition, upholding the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting pre-arrest bail when based on an elaborate discussion of relevant factors?
- Does an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR justify the concession of pre-arrest bail to the accused?
- Is the lack of specific attribution of grievous injuries to individual accused persons a valid ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- RAHIM BUX vs THE STATE AND 6 OTHERSs1979 P Cr. L J 241(2) · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-28Read full judgment →
- RAHIM BAKHSH vs WAHID BAKHSH1979 PLD Lahore 544 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arose from a pre-emption suit decreed in favor of the respondent, who claimed a superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer and owner of the estate. The appellant challenged this on two grounds: first, that the land was purchased for constructing a residential house, which allegedly barred pre-emption; and second, that the appellant was also an owner of the estate by virtue of a prior land purchase. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal. It held that under Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, an owner of an estate has the right to pre-empt the sale of agricultural land within that estate regardless of whether the buyer intends to use it for residential purposes. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts that because the appellant had constructed a house (including a courtyard) on his previously purchased land, he ceased to be an 'owner of the estate' for pre-emption purposes, as the land was no longer agricultural.
Questions settled- Does a buyer's intention to construct a residential house on agricultural land bar a pre-emptor's right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Does an individual retain the status of an 'owner of the estate' for pre-emption purposes if they construct a house and courtyard on their previously purchased land within that estate?
- RAHAT TALKIES THROUGH MANAGING PARTNER--- vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, EXCISE & TAXATION CUM MEMBER. BOARD OF REVENUE II, QUETTA AND 2 Other1979 PLD Quetta 198 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-05-19Read full judgment →
- RAFIQUE vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 936 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-25Read full judgment →
- QUETTA COOPERATIVE STORE LTD. vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN AND 2 Other1979 PLD Quetta 60 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
- QASIM KHAN vs NAWAZ KHAN AND Other1979 SCMR 358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for review of an order dated 18-12-1977, which had dismissed a civil petition for special leave to appeal. The original dispute involved a claim of pre-emption regarding a parcel of land measuring less than two Kanals. The Court had previously held that the land was purchased by the vendee for the purpose of constructing houses and, consequently, was exempt from the right of pre-emption. In the review petition, the petitioner contended that the vendee would face practical difficulties in obtaining partition of such a small area from other co-owners. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the alleged difficulty regarding partition pertains to the manner of construction and does not affect the legal finding regarding the non-pre-emptibility of the sale transaction. The Court reaffirmed that such practical concerns do not constitute valid grounds for reviewing a judgment. The review petition was found to be without merit and was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the difficulty of obtaining partition of a small land area constitute a valid ground for reviewing a judgment on pre-emption?
- Is a sale of land for the purpose of constructing houses exempt from the right of pre-emption?
- QASIM KHAN AND Others vs THE STATE1979 PLD Lahore 621 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-16Read full judgment →
- QAMAR vs THE STATE1979 PLD Lahore 436 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-25Read full judgment →
- QAMAR SAEED MIRZA vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MULTAN AND Others1979 P Cr. L J 408 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
- QAISAR RAZA vs TF E STATE---Opponent1979 P Cr. L J 758 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-24Read full judgment →
- QAIMEY Alias BHOLA vs THE SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR DIVISION, BAHAWALPUR AND 3 Other1979 PLD Lahore 535 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY NON- GAZETTED STAFF UNION, LYALLPUR vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 448 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN vs Mst. HASSAN BANG AND 8 Other1979 PLD Quetta 63 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-03-04Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB vs GHULAM NABI1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 83 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-12-17Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER vs Malik FALAK SHER AWAN1979 CLC 421 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-09Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs Hafiz MUHAMMAD AJMAL ALVI1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 119 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-04-04Read full judgment →
- PROF. MUHAMMAD HANEEF vs The STATE1979 SCMR 459 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of the petitioner's post-arrest bail application by the Lahore High Court in a case registered under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds that no fatal injury was attributed to him and that a cross-first information report had been lodged with conflicting versions of the occurrence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's presence, active participation evidenced by a firearm injury inflicted on an injured witness, and the existence of distinguishing features justifying differential treatment among co-accused negate the grant of bail at this stage. The court laid down the principle that minute sifting of prosecution evidence is impermissible at the bail stage, and where lower courts have properly evaluated the material and applied distinguishing features among co-accused, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to bail merely because no fatal injury is attributed to him in a murder case?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's refusal to grant bail when no legal or factual error is pointed out?
- Whether the existence of a cross-first information report automatically entitles an accused to post-arrest bail?
- PROF. A. HAMEED KAUSAR vs THE STATE ETC.1979 PLD Lahore 727 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge that dismissed a revision petition regarding proceedings initiated under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought to make a conditional order against the respondent's workshop absolute, arguing that the respondent's written statement constituted an admission of the nuisance and a waiver of the right to show cause. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A when a revision had already been decided by the Sessions Court, and whether the respondent's compliance with a conditional order precluded him from showing cause. The Court held that Section 561-A cannot be used as an alternative or additional jurisdiction where other remedies have been exhausted. Furthermore, the Court ruled that complying with a conditional order does not prevent a party from showing cause, as these actions are not mutually exclusive. The petition was dismissed in limine, emphasizing that inherent powers are reserved for the interest of justice where no other procedure exists.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a revision petition has already been decided by the Sessions Court?
- Does compliance with a conditional order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude a respondent from showing cause against the order?
- Is the jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 available as an alternative or additional remedy where other statutory procedures have been exhausted?
- PRINCIPAL, NISHTAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, MULTAN vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN1979 SCMR 604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a review petition filed against the judgment of this Court dated 18th of September 1978, which partly accepted an appeal by special leave. The respondent, a final year student at Nishtar Medical College, Multan, was expelled for three years by the Principal after being found guilty of attacking a professor. The respondent challenged his expulsion through a writ petition and an intra-court appeal before the Lahore High Court, both of which were dismissed. Upon further appeal, this Court held that under rule H of the General Disciplinary Rules contained in the prospectus of the Government Medical Colleges of the Punjab for the year 1975-76, the Principal lacked the authority to rusticate a student for more than one year, thereby reducing the penalty. The review petitioner sought a review of this decision and alternatively prayed for the transfer of the respondent to another college. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the review petition was barred by time by 81 days and that the Principal could proceed in accordance with law regarding any transfer power. The review petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Principal of a medical college has the authority to rusticate a student for more than one year under the General Disciplinary Rules?
- Is a review petition filed with a delay of 81 days liable to be dismissed?
- Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with administrative transfer powers of college authorities not forming part of the judgment under review?
- PRINCESS AIYSHA YASMIEN ABBASI vs MAQBOOL HUSSAIN QURESHI AND 21979 PLD Lahore 241 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Chairman of the Arbitration Council under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, which had held that a mutual agreement between spouses to dissolve their marriage did not constitute a valid notice of talaq under section 7 of the Ordinance. The core legal question was whether a joint communication of a dissolution of marriage by mutual consent (Khula or Mubaraat) submitted to the Chairman qualifies as a valid notice under section 8 read with section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The Lahore High Court held that the joint written agreement of dissolution sent to the Chairman served as a valid notice under section 8 read with section 7, applying mutatis mutandis. The Court ruled that while proceedings before the Arbitration Council under section 7 remain necessary for a dissolution other than talaq, the Chairman's refusal to treat the mutual agreement as a valid notice was erroneous and without lawful authority, and the dissolution became effective upon the expiry of the 90-day period.
Questions settled- Does a joint written agreement between spouses to dissolve their marriage constitute a valid notice under section 8 read with section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- Are proceedings before the Arbitration Council necessary when a marriage is dissolved otherwise than by talaq?
- When does a dissolution of marriage by mutual consent become effective under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- PRFESSOR ALAUD DIN AKHTAR, CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB TEXTBOOK BOARD vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH THE CHNF1979 PLD Lahore 324 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the government's order repatriating the petitioner from the statutory post of Chairman, Punjab Textbook Board, before the expiry of his three-year tenure. The core legal question was whether the government could curtail a fixed statutory tenure by labeling an appointment as 'officiating' or 'on deputation' when the appointment was made to a regular vacancy. The Court held that the post of Chairman is a statutory office with a fixed tenure under the Punjab Ordinance XLI of 1962, which cannot be interrupted by administrative labels. The Court ruled that the terms 'officiating' and 'deputation' used in the appointment letter were mere surplusage that could not override the legislative intent. Consequently, the repatriation order was declared to be without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that in statutory appointments, courts must prioritize the substance of the appointment over the terminology used in the notification, and a fixed statutory tenure cannot be curtailed by the appointing authority unless the governing statute explicitly authorizes such action.
Questions settled- Can the government curtail a fixed statutory tenure by designating an appointment as 'officiating' or 'on deputation'?
- Does the use of the term 'officiating' in an appointment letter automatically render a statutory appointment temporary?
- Does the acceptance of a second incompatible office operate to vacate the first office held?
- POPULAR TOBACCO Co. WORKERS' UNION vs SECOND SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1979 PLC 62 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-27Read full judgment →
- PIR GHULAM vs NOOR ZAMAN1979 SCMR 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the plaintiff on the grounds of contiguity and being a participator in immunities and appendages (Shafi-i-Khalit). The trial court partially decreed the suit under clause 'secondly' of Section 12 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act XIV of 1950 because both the plaintiff's land and part of the suit land received irrigation water from the same channel. This decree was largely upheld by the District Judge, but the Peshawar High Court reversed the decisions in second appeal and dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, dismissing the petition. The Court held that receiving irrigation water from a common channel does not confer a right of pre-emption as Shafi-i-Khalit. Clause 'secondly' of Section 12 requires a distinct 'right to discharge' water (a right of flow) over the suit land, rather than merely drawing water from a common source.
Questions settled- Does drawing irrigation water from a common channel constitute a right of pre-emption as Shafi-i-Khalit?
- What constitutes a 'right to discharge' water under clause 'secondly' of Section 12 of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act XIV of 1950?
- PIR BUX vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 747 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-07Read full judgment →
- PERVEZ IQBAL AND Another vs MUHAMMAD HANIF AND Other1979 SCMR 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee house in Rawalpindi. The property was initially transferred to the petitioners' predecessor, who failed to pay the evaluation price, leading to the cancellation of the transfer and subsequent auction to the respondents' predecessor. The petitioners, despite being granted time to pay by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, failed to do so for six years. Years later, a Settlement Commissioner accepted a revision petition and restored the property to the petitioners. The High Court set aside this order, citing the Settlement Commissioner's conflict of interest, the death of the respondent prior to the order, and the petitioners' laches. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioners had no subsisting interest in the property due to their failure to comply with the payment order they themselves had requested. The Court affirmed that the Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to reopen the case after such a significant delay and that the property had been validly auctioned and transferred via a Permanent Transfer Deed.
Questions settled- Does a party have a subsisting interest in an evacuee property if they fail to comply with a payment order granted upon their own request?
- Can a Settlement Commissioner exercise revisional jurisdiction to reopen a case after a significant lapse of time without adequate explanation?
- Does the failure to comply with a payment order for evacuee property render a subsequent auction sale and issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed valid?
- PERVAIZ Alias BILLOO AND Another vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER-1979 P Cr. L J 451 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-10Read full judgment →
- PEERAL AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 101 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-02Read full judgment →
- PEER BAKHSH vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 24 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenged an order passed by the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, concerning proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. The petitioner had previously been prosecuted under the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1969, based on the same allegations and specific instances of anti-social activities. The core legal question was whether a person could be subjected to simultaneous prosecutions under two different statutes for the same set of facts and allegations. The Court held that the second prosecution under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, was not maintainable while the earlier proceedings under the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1969, remained pending. The Court emphasized that subjecting an individual to double jeopardy by prosecuting them on the same facts in separate, concurrent proceedings is repugnant to Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which protects against being prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the pending proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975.
Questions settled- Can a person be prosecuted simultaneously under two different statutes for the same set of facts and allegations?
- Does the initiation of a second prosecution on identical facts violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy?
- Are proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 maintainable if prior proceedings under the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance 1969 are still pending for the same conduct?
- PECO HEAD OFFICE STAFF UNION vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, LAHORE1979 PLD Lahore 820 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged an order of the Registrar of Trade Unions appointing a rival trade union as the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) without holding a secret ballot under section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether the Registrar could bypass holding a referendum and declare a union as CBA merely because another contesting union defaulted in supplying its list of members within the stipulated time. The High Court held that once a registered trade union expresses its desire to contest the secret ballot, the Registrar is legally bound to hold a referendum, and failure to supply a membership list does not empower the Registrar to strike off a union's candidature or dispense with the secret ballot. The court ruled that the power to declare a CBA without a secret ballot applies only when no other union expresses a desire to contest. The impugned order was quashed and the Registrar was directed to conduct a referendum.
Questions settled- Can the Registrar of Trade Unions appoint a Collective Bargaining Agent without holding a secret ballot when multiple registered trade unions have expressed a desire to contest?
- Does the failure of a contesting trade union to supply its list of members within the time allowed authorize the Registrar to strike off its candidature?
- Under what circumstances can the Registrar declare a trade union as a Collective Bargaining Agent without conducting a poll?
- PATHANA vs THE STATE-1979 P Cr. L J 354 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-16Read full judgment →
- PARYO vs THE STATE AND 4 OTHERS--1979 P Cr. L J 945 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
- PARACHA TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs MOHAMMAD SULEMAN1979 P LC 540 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-03-30Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, KARACHI-- vs MESSRS RIZVI & Co., KARACHI1979 PLD Karachi 250 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-05Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN vs MESSRS RIZVI & Co., KARACHI AND Another1979 PLD Karachi 744 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-24Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN THROUGH VICE-CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY, LAHORE AND Another vs ABDUL HAYEE1979 PLD Lahore 617 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES, KARACHI vs S.1979 PLD Karachi 117 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-19Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN SECURITY PRESS EMPLOYEES UNION vs SINDH LABOUR COURT NO.II1979 PLC 410 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-19Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RAILWAYS vs JUNIOR LABOUR COURTS V AND OTHERS1979 PLC 320 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the legality of Labour Court orders directing Pakistan Railways to grant pro forma promotion to a retired employee. The core legal question was whether a retired employee qualifies as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance and is thus entitled to initiate grievance proceedings under Section 25-A. The Court held that the Labour Courts lacked jurisdiction, as the respondent was a retired employee and not a 'workman' at the time of instituting the proceedings. The Court reasoned that the definition of 'workman' in the Ordinance requires current employment in an establishment, or specific circumstances such as dismissal or discharge related to an industrial dispute. Retirement upon superannuation does not satisfy these criteria. The Court emphasized that the legislature did not extend the definition of 'workman' to include past employees, contrasting this with the broader definition of 'civil servant' found in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently, the proceedings were deemed legally incompetent, and the petition was allowed.
Questions settled- Does a retired employee qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- Can a retired employee initiate grievance proceedings under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- Is retirement from service equivalent to dismissal or discharge for the purpose of defining a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- PAKISTAN MINE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION AND 2 Other vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, QUETTA AND 2 Other1979 PLD Quetta 160 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan challenged a notification issued by the District Magistrate, Quetta, under section 8(2)(b) of the Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation of 1947, compelling coal companies to open coal depots at specified places and fixing the maximum sale price of coal. The core legal questions involved whether the power to prescribe conditions and fix maximum prices under subsection (2)(b) is dependent upon the fulfillment of the prerequisite information-gathering procedure under subsection (2)(a), and whether price fixation by Martial Law authorities rather than the designated functionary is lawful. The Balochistan High Court held that subsection (2)(a) is a mandatory prerequisite for taking action under subsection (2)(b), and that price fixation by unauthorized Martial Law authorities is unlawful and without legal sanction. The court ruled that failure to observe the statutory prerequisites renders the impugned order illegal and without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether the power to prescribe conditions and fix maximum prices under subsection (2)(b) of section 8 of the Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation of 1947 is dependent upon compliance with the prerequisite information-gathering provisions of subsection (2)(a)?
- Can Martial Law authorities fix maximum prices or exercise powers specifically vested in a designated statutory functionary under the Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation of 1947?
- Whether a constitutional petition becomes infructuous and ceases to be adjudicated on merits solely because the impugned temporary order has expired by efflux of time?
- PAKISTAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, KARACHI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 51979 CLC 382 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Pakistan Medical Association, challenged the cancellation of its allotment of a plot by the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) and the subsequent allotment of the same land to a private housing society. The core legal question was whether the government or the KDA could unilaterally cancel a valid, subsisting allotment without notice or legal justification, and whether the government could override KDA's statutory functions by directly allotting land already committed to another party. The Court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's allotment was unlawful, as the petitioner had committed no breach of terms, and the principles of natural justice required a hearing before such cancellation. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the government lacked the authority to make direct allotments or override the KDA’s statutory functions in this manner. The allotment to the housing society was declared to be of no legal effect. The Court affirmed that the KDA’s actions in managing housing schemes constitute the performance of statutory obligations, rendering the matter amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is the cancellation of a plot allotment by a statutory body subject to the court's writ jurisdiction?
- Does the principle of natural justice require a hearing before a statutory body cancels an existing allotment of land?
- Can the provincial government or Chief Minister unilaterally override a valid allotment made by the Karachi Development Authority?
- Is an allotment of land by a statutory body considered a performance of statutory obligation rather than a simple agreement?
- PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATIONAND 5 OTHERSs vs MUHAMMAD IZHARUL AHSAN QURESHI1979 CLC 88 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-02Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION, KARACHI AND 4 Other vs ALLAH DITTA BUGTI1979 PLD Karachi 542 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION vs CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB1979 PLD Lahore 415 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenges the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal reinstating an officer in Group VII of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) whose post was abolished. The Labour Court had dismissed the officer's petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, holding that he was not a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. The Tribunal reversed this on appeal. The High Court examined the nature of the officer's duties involving tact, initiative, and high-level representation, holding that he performed neither manual nor clerical work as his main functions, and thus was not a workman under Standing Order 2(i). Furthermore, the High Court held that adoption of Section 25-A by reference in Standing Order 12(3) did not automatically incorporate the right of appeal under Section 37(3) of the Ordinance 1969. Consequently, the High Court declared the Tribunal's appellate order to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Whether an employee performing duties requiring initiative, drive, and personal contact rather than manual or clerical work is a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Does the incorporation of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 by reference into Standing Order 12(3) automatically confer a right of appeal under Section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Can a right of appeal be inferred by implication where a statute adopts procedural provisions of another enactment without express words granting an appeal?
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs R. M. ISHAQUE ETC.1979 PLC 541 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-03-27Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION AND 5 Other vs MUHAMMAD IZHARUL AHSAN QURESHI1979 PLD Karachi 640 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application arises from a dispute where the respondent, an employee of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration and injunction to prevent the corporation from conducting a departmental inquiry into his alleged misconduct and to restrain his suspension. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, ruling that the civil court lacked jurisdiction because the respondent’s remedy lay under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The appellate court reversed this, asserting civil court jurisdiction. The High Court, in revision, held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction. The court reasoned that where a special statute, such as the Industrial Relations Ordinance, creates specific rights and provides a dedicated forum and procedure for enforcing those rights, the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts is excluded. Consequently, an employee aggrieved by service-related actions must seek redress through the Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance rather than filing a declaratory suit under the Specific Relief Act, as rights arising from a service contract do not constitute a 'legal character' under that Act.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding service grievances when a special forum is provided under the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- Can a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act be maintained for rights and liabilities arising solely from a contract of service?
- Where a special statute creates a right and provides a specific mechanism for its enforcement, is the jurisdiction of civil courts excluded?
- PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION, KARACHI vs AZIZ QURESHI1979 CLC 16 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-19Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN FISHERIES LTD., KARACHI vs ASGHAR ALI AND 2 OTHERS1979 PLC 437 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-11Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN BURMAH-SHELL LTD., KARACHI AND 3 Others vs SIND LABOUR1979 PLC 25 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-28Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL LTD., KARACHI- vs S. S. PHOENIX AND 4 Other1979 PLD Karachi 789 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an admiralty suit brought by Pakistan Burmah Shell Limited against the ship s. s. Phoenix and others for the recovery of the price of furnace oil supplied to the vessel. The core legal questions involve whether the furnace oil constituted necessaries, whether the supplies were made upon the credit of the ship or the personal credit of the local agent, and whether an admiralty action in rem is maintainable when supplies are made on a third party's personal credit rather than the ship's or owners' credit. The Sindh High Court held that while furnace oil qualifies as 'necessaries' under admiralty law and is prima facie presumed to be supplied on the credit of the ship, this presumption was rebutted by evidence showing the supply was made exclusively on the personal credit of the local agent, defendant 3. Consequently, the court ruled that the action in rem was not maintainable against the vessel and dismissed the suit against the owners and agents, vacating the order of arrest.
Questions settled- Whether furnace oil supplied to a ship qualifies as 'necessaries' under admiralty law?
- Does the presumption that necessaries are supplied on the credit of the ship stand rebutted when supplies are made on the personal credit of a local agent?
- Is an admiralty action in rem maintainable against a vessel when the supplies were furnished upon the personal credit of a third party?
- Can a plaintiff simultaneously proceed both in rem and in personam in an action for necessaries under admiralty jurisdiction?
- NOORULLAH QURESHI vs THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, PLANNING & ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, STATISTICS DIVISION, KARACHI AND 104 OTHERS1979 PLC (C. S.) 319 · Service Tribunal · 1978-10-16Read full judgment →
- NOORUDDIN BADRUDDIN AND ANOTHERs vs AMANULLAH D. DHARANI AND ANOTHER Opponents1979 CLC 252 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-08Read full judgment →
- NOORA vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 946 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-21Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 145 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-22Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD QURESHI AND Another vs THE DIVISIONAL1979 SCMR 157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, coal dealers, challenged the termination of their license agreements for storage space at Spezand Railway Station by the respondent Railways. They filed constitutional petitions in the High Court of Baluchistan, alleging the notices were issued without lawful authority and under the influence of Martial Law Authorities. The High Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that the matter involved the enforcement of contractual rights, which is outside the scope of constitutional jurisdiction, and noted the agreements were secured through improper influence. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision. The Court held that the Railway Administration acted within its rights under Clause 10 of the agreement, which permitted termination without assigning reasons upon notice. Crucially, the Court reaffirmed the principle that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to enforce purely contractual obligations. Finding no merit in the petitions and lacking jurisdiction to grant the requested relief regarding the eviction, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, noting that any plea for time to vacate should be directed to the respondent Railways.
Questions settled- Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked to enforce purely contractual rights?
- Is a Railway Administration entitled to terminate a license agreement based on a specific termination clause?
- Does the High Court have the authority to grant relief for the enforcement of contractual obligations under its constitutional jurisdiction?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 224 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1978-04-18Read full judgment →