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.
- NOOR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE-1979 P Cr. L J 505 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-23Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD vs EAGLE STAR INSURANCE Co. LTD. AND Other1979 SCMR 671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's order allowing an application for the restoration of an execution application which had been previously dismissed for default. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's discretion in restoring an execution application where the respondent had advanced a false plea regarding the omission of the case from the cause list. The Supreme Court held that while the view taken by the learned Judge of the High Court was incorrect and the application should ideally have been dismissed, the matter of restoring the execution application fell within the discretionary powers of the High Court, and the order was not so perverse as to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the discretionary orders of the High Court under Article 185 of the Constitution unless the order is shown to be perverse, even if the lower court's view is considered incorrect.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the discretionary order of the High Court restoring an execution application?
- Does a false plea regarding the absence of a case from the cause list render an order of restoration perverse enough to warrant special leave to appeal?
- NISAR AHMAD AND 2 Others vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND 3 Other1979 SCMR 389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition in limine by the Lahore High Court, which upheld that the petitioners lacked the locus standi to challenge an order validating the transfer of evacuee trust property. The petitioners, occupying the property as tenants under the Evacuee Trust Board, argued they were aggrieved persons under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 because they enjoyed better prospects as tenants of the Board than under private owners. The core legal question was whether mere tenants of evacuee trust property possess the requisite locus standi as 'aggrieved persons' to challenge the transfer of that property through writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a tenant's mere expectation of better tenancy terms does not equate to a legal right or substantial interest in the property. The Court established the principle that invoking writ jurisdiction requires demonstrating a direct or indirect legal injury and a substantial interest in the subject matter, rather than a mere change in landlord-tenant dynamics.
Questions settled- Does a tenant of evacuee trust property have the locus standi to challenge the transfer of that property under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the prospect of enjoying better terms under one landlord versus another be equated with having a legal right or interest in the property for the purpose of writ jurisdiction?
- What constitutes being an 'aggrieved person' entitled to invoke the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- NISAR AHMAD AND 2 Others vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 3 Other1979 SCMR 299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a writ petition in limine. The petitioners, who were tenants of the Evacuee Trust Board, sought to challenge an order by the Federal Government validating the transfer of the property in dispute to the respondents under the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether the petitioners possessed the necessary locus standi to maintain a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petitioners argued that as tenants, they were 'aggrieved persons' because their status as tenants under the Trust was more favorable than their potential status under the respondents. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the petitioners failed to establish a direct or indirect injury or a substantial interest in the subject matter. The Court affirmed the principle that to invoke writ jurisdiction, a petitioner must be an 'aggrieved person' with a tangible legal interest, which mere tenancy does not constitute.
Questions settled- Does a tenant of evacuee trust property have the locus standi to challenge the transfer of that property to a third party under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is a mere expectation of better tenancy conditions sufficient to qualify a petitioner as an 'aggrieved person' for the purpose of invoking writ jurisdiction?
- Must a petitioner demonstrate a direct or indirect injury to their legal interest to maintain a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- NIAZ ALI vs THE STATE-1979 P Cr. L J 149 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-14Read full judgment →
- NIAMATULLAH KHAN AND 8 Other vs GHULAM SARWAR AND 14 Other1979 PLD Peshawar 31 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-01-19Read full judgment →
- NIAMAT ALI vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 604 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-06Read full judgment →
- NAZIR ALI vs Mst. KHURSHID AKHTAR1979 CLC 388 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-26Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMED vs THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 105 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMED KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU &1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 111 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs SUMMARY MILITARY COURT No. 2 AND ANOTHERs1979 P Cr. L J 833 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-10Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1979 PLD Lahore 707 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-07Read full judgment →
- NAZAR QASIM vs Mst. SHAISTA RARVEEN1979 CLC 462 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenged an appellate order that remanded a suit to the Civil Court, despite the trial court having rejected the plaint for lack of jurisdiction. The respondent had filed a suit seeking a declaration that no marriage existed between her and the applicant, and that the alleged Nikahnama was a forgery. The core legal question was whether such a suit constitutes a "jactitation of marriage," falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. The High Court held that the suit was essentially for jactitation of marriage, as its primary object was to silence a false claim of marriage, with the cancellation of the Nikahnama being merely a consequential relief. The Court ruled that the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. Furthermore, it clarified that Section 23 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, does not bar a party from challenging a marriage on grounds of fraud or non-existence, as fraud vitiates even solemn transactions. The revision was allowed, and the plaint was directed to be returned for presentation to the Family Court.
Questions settled- Does a suit seeking a declaration that a marriage never existed and that a Nikahnama is a forgery constitute a suit for jactitation of marriage?
- Does the Family Court have exclusive jurisdiction to hear a suit for jactitation of marriage?
- Does Section 23 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 prevent a party from proving that a marriage never took place or that a Nikahnama was forged?
- Can a civil court entertain a suit for the cancellation of a Nikahnama when the underlying dispute is essentially a jactitation of marriage?
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, MULTAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY Co.1979 PLC 69 · National Industrial Relations CommissionRead full judgment →
- NAWAZ ALI AND Another vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 571 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-03Read full judgment →
- NAWAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 736 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sukkur, dated 31-7-1976, convicting the appellants for the murder of their relation, Allahbux, and sentencing them to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of judicial confessions rendered after prolonged illegal police detention without remand, and the corroborative weight of circumstantial evidence and motive. The Sindh High Court held that the eyewitness account was unconvincing due to inconsistent medical evidence and poor visibility at the material time, the judicial confessions were vitiated by illegal detention and mechanical certification by the magistrate, and the recoveries of weapons were doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, giving the benefit of the doubt to the appellants. The key principle laid down is that motive, however strong, cannot provide corroboration to other pieces of evidence that are themselves infirm and unworthy of credence, and that confessions preceded by unexplained illegal police custody are inadmissible.
Questions settled- Can a judicial confession recorded after prolonged illegal detention without remand be relied upon?
- Does motive alone provide sufficient corroboration for infirm ocular evidence in a murder trial?
- Whether delayed lodging of the first information report without plausible explanation casts doubt on the prosecution case?
- Can mechanical appending of certificates by a magistrate vitiate the voluntariness and truth of a judicial confession?
- NAWAB DIN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (SETTLEMENT & REHABILITA TION).PLD 1979Supreme Court846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for special leave to appeal addresses a dispute over the transfer of erstwhile evacuee land originally claimed by a displaced person, Rehmatullah, whose application had remained pending due to administrative interventions and subsequent litigation. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of the term 'proceedings' under section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975, specifically whether a pending application for the allotment of land based on unsatisfied verified claims constitutes a pending judicial proceeding saved from abatement upon the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. The Supreme Court held that the word 'proceedings' is comprehensive enough to encompass administrative and quasi-judicial applications for enforcing substantive statutory rights under the repealed settlement laws, and that pending applications remain sub judice and are saved for final disposal. The Court laid down that the connotation of 'proceedings' must be understood with reference to the text, subject-matter, and legislative intent, covering any prescribed course of action for enforcing a legal right without artificially dividing them into strictly judicial or executive categories.
Questions settled- Does the term 'proceedings' in section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 include administrative or quasi-judicial applications for land allotment?
- Are pending applications for the transfer of evacuee land saved under section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 upon the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- Does a person obtaining land on a temporary tender basis acquire a preferential right over a claimant displaced person whose allotment application is pending at the time of statutory repeal?
- How is the connotation of the word 'proceedings' to be determined when used in a statutory enactment?
- NATIONAL STEEL LTD. vs Mks. F. AFSAR1979 PLD Supreme Court 819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding an eviction order against a tenant. The petitioner sought to challenge the eviction on the ground that the ejectment application was filed before the expiry of the lease period, citing the proviso to section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the finding regarding the landlord's bona fide personal requirement for the premises. The Supreme Court held that the objection regarding the premature filing of the eviction application was not raised before the Rent Controller or the first appellate court and, therefore, could not be entertained at the appellate stage, especially since the lease period had long since expired and the respondent could have rectified the procedural defect had it been raised earlier. Regarding the bona fide requirement, the Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The petition was dismissed, with the Court granting the petitioner four months to vacate the premises subject to rent payment.
Questions settled- Can a tenant raise the objection of premature filing of an eviction application for the first time in the High Court if it was not pleaded before the Rent Controller?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide personal requirement of a landlord?
- Is an eviction order maintainable if the lease period expires during the pendency of the litigation, even if the initial application was filed prematurely?
- NATIONAL MARBLE INDUSTRIES LTD. Petitioner vs KARACHI MUNICIPAL1979 PLD Karachi 604 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- NATIONAL MARBLE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND 2 Others vs SUPERINTENDENT, OCTROI1979 P Cr. L J 261 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-10Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD IRFAN1979 PLC 108 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-02-07Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI vs KURBAN HUSSAIN THROUGN His 101979 PLD Karachi 471 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-27Read full judgment →
- NATHA vs Sh. MUHAMMAD AMIN AND ANOTHER1979 CLC 532 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
- NASIRUDDIN QURESHI AND 6 Other vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ADDITIONAL1979 PLD Karachi 176 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-14Read full judgment →
- NASEER AHMAD vs The STATE1979 SCMR 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, maintained by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the surrounding circumstances of widespread civil unrest and rioting in Jhelum. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed. The Court observed that the written complaint (FIR) was likely fabricated during the investigation rather than being a contemporaneous record. Furthermore, the ocular testimony was deemed unreliable due to significant contradictions regarding the involvement of other accused persons and the suppression of the broader context of rioting that occurred on the night of the incident. Consequently, the Court concluded that the evidence failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that in cases of large-scale civil disturbance, where ocular testimony is inconsistent and the FIR appears to be a post-investigation creation, such evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained when the FIR is found to have been fabricated during the investigation?
- Does the suppression of the broader context of civil rioting by prosecution witnesses undermine the credibility of ocular testimony?
- Is a conviction for murder sustainable when there are significant contradictions regarding the identity and participation of alleged co-accused?
- NASAR TRADING COMPANY AND 6 Other vs PROVINCIAL TRANSPORT1979 PLD Quetta 45 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated constitutional petitions challenge transport authority orders modifying time-tables for bus routes without providing an opportunity of hearing to affected transporters and in violation of quorum requirements. The core legal questions involve whether the Chairman of the Provincial Transport Authority can unilaterally alter transport policies or time-tables sitting singly, whether principles of natural justice require a hearing prior to such modifications, and whether statutory appeal provisions bar constitutional remedies where orders are wholly without jurisdiction. The Balochistan High Court held that policy decisions and modifications affecting route time-tables outside the specific appealable provisions of section 66 of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance must be made by the Provincial Transport Authority as a body meeting the required quorum, rather than by the Chairman acting alone. Furthermore, any administrative or quasi-judicial order adversely affecting a party's rights violates natural justice if passed without notice and hearing. The Court laid down that the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 where the impugned order is ab initio void for lack of jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can the Chairman of the Provincial Transport Authority exercise original powers singly to alter policy or time-tables without the statutory quorum?
- Does the failure to afford a hearing to affected transporters render a time-table modification illegal and void?
- Does the availability of an alternative remedy bar the High Court from granting relief under Article 199 against an order that is wholly without jurisdiction?
- Whether more than one appeal is envisaged under section 66 of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance?
- NANNH AY KHAN vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 381 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-16Read full judgment →
- NAN FLING TEXTILES LTD., HONG KONG-.Petitioner vs H. PIR MUHAMMAD1979 PLD Karachi 762 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition sought the enforcement of a foreign arbitration award under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937. The petitioner, a Hong Kong-based entity, obtained an award against a Pakistani respondent following a dispute over cotton supply contracts. The respondent challenged the enforcement, arguing that no concluded contract existed, that their agent lacked authority, that the contract was frustrated by the State Bank of Pakistan’s refusal to approve the export, and that the award was not a valid foreign award due to a lack of reciprocal arrangements. The Court held that the agents possessed the requisite authority, or their actions were ratified, and that the doctrine of frustration under the Contract Act, 1872 did not apply as the export restrictions were not a condition of the contract and the respondent failed to act diligently. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the award was enforceable under the Act, as amended by Ordinance LIII of 1962, and that the arbitrators acted within their powers in awarding interest under the relevant association by-laws. The petition was granted.
Questions settled- Can a party plead frustration of contract under Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872, due to the refusal of the State Bank of Pakistan to grant export permission when such permission was not a condition of the contract?
- Does the lack of reciprocal arrangements for the enforcement of Pakistani awards in a foreign country prevent the enforcement of a foreign award in Pakistan under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937?
- Can an arbitrator award interest for the period prior to the date of the award if the governing by-laws of the arbitration association expressly authorize it?
- Does an agent have apparent authority to bind a principal to a contract if the principal later ratifies the agent's actions?
- NAJAM ABBAS AND Others vs MUNAWAR ALI KHAN AND Another1979 SCMR 313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which transferred a murder trial from the Sessions Court, Jhang, to another district. The core legal question was whether the High Court's discretionary order for transfer was based on sufficient material and whether the absence of State representation during the transfer application hearing rendered the order illegal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order was justified, noting that the allegations of witness intimidation provided sufficient material for the transfer, and the High Court was not required to conduct an elaborate inquiry into these allegations. Furthermore, the Court held that the absence of the State at the hearing did not invalidate the order, as notice had been served and the State’s non-appearance implied a decision not to oppose the transfer. The Court affirmed that it would not entertain objections or arguments regarding prejudice that were not raised before the High Court. The petition for leave was dismissed, upholding the discretionary power of the High Court to transfer cases to ensure a fair trial.
Questions settled- Is a High Court required to conduct an elaborate inquiry into allegations of witness intimidation before ordering the transfer of a criminal case?
- Does the absence of the State at the hearing of a transfer application render the resulting order illegal if notice was served?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to examine objections that were not raised before the High Court in the original proceedings?
- NAIMAT Alias CHACHA KATTA vs ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 279 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three writ petitions challenging the convictions and sentences imposed by a Summary Military Court for the possession of obscene literature under Section 292 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 156(1)(89) of the Customs Act 1969. The core legal questions were whether the convictions could be sustained in the absence of the alleged obscene material on the record and whether the procedural requirements for search, seizure, and investigation were satisfied. The Court held that the convictions were illegal and set them aside. The ratio decidendi is that a conviction under Section 292 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires the Court to independently determine obscenity based on the material itself, which must be produced as evidence. Furthermore, the Court established that failure to produce the alleged obscene material, combined with the deliberate violation of procedural safeguards—specifically the failure to secure public witnesses for searches under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the lack of valid search warrants under Sections 96 and 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—renders the convictions unsustainable and without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for possession of obscene literature be sustained if the alleged material is not produced in court?
- Is the opinion of witnesses sufficient to establish obscenity, or must the court independently determine it?
- Does the failure to associate public witnesses during a search and seizure violate the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Are searches and seizures conducted without warrants from a competent court legally valid?
- NAFEES UD DIN KHAN vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 389 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-29Read full judgment →
- NADIR HUSSAIN AND Another vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 838 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-27Read full judgment →
- N. S. HOON vs ADVOCATE GENERAL, SIND, KARACHI1979 SCMR 600 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, whereby the appellant was convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500 for attempting to influence and induce a witness in a pending civil suit. The core legal question was whether the conviction of the appellant based on the solitary, uncorroborated statement of the complainant, alleged to be inconsistent and motivated, was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the contempt proceedings were duly established upon a thorough and careful appreciation of evidence, and that attempts to influence a witness or warp their mind constitute a clear contempt of court. The court laid down that while contempt proceedings are criminal in nature, an alleged contemner is not in the exact position of an accused for all purposes and may file an affidavit or make a statement on oath, and that unrebutted circumstantial corroboration and motive are sufficient to sustain a conviction when the witness's testimony is found credible.
Questions settled- Whether an attempt to influence a witness or warp their mind amounts to contempt of court?
- Can a conviction for contempt of court be sustained on the solitary statement of the complainant?
- What is the legal position of an alleged contemner in criminal contempt proceedings regarding filing affidavits and making statements on oath?
- MUZAFFAR ABBAS NAQVI AND 10 Other vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AHD1979 PLC 355 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUSHTAQUE HUSSAIN SHAH vs B. P. BISCUIT FACTORY, KARACHI1979 PLC 118 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-02-15Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ vs Mst. FAREEDA1979 CLC 457 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-19Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1979 SCMR 496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an eviction petition filed by the respondent landlord against the petitioner tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 concerning a residential house in Faisalabad. The Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit arrears of rent, but upon non-compliance, struck off his defence and ordered eviction. The tenant's departmental appeals before the District Judge and the Lahore High Court were dismissed, leading to a petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller is legally required to determine disputed adjustments before passing a tentative rent deposit order under section 13 of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that the order for depositing rent is based on a tentative view and its compliance cannot be shelved pending a regular trial on adjustments. The Court laid down the principle that compliance with a tentative rent deposit direction is a condition precedent for the Rent Controller to further examine or adjudicate upon the tenant's defence pleas.
Questions settled- Whether an order directing the deposit of rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 can be shelved on the plea of adjustment?
- Is a tentative rent deposit order based on a preliminary view of the case rather than a regular trial?
- Does non-compliance with a tentative rent deposit order justify striking off the tenant's defence?
- MUSHTAQ AHMED vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 843 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-04Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMED AND ANOTHER vs SHAFIQULLAH KHAN AND TWO OTHERS-1979 P Cr. L J 741 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-20Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 980 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-24Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, BADAMIBAGH1979 PLC 341 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-11-08Read full judgment →
- MUSHATAQ AHMAID vs PRESIDENT, SPECIAL MILITARY COURT No. 7, KARACHI1979 SCMR 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against an interlocutory order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, which declined to grant interim bail to the petitioner at the motion stage of a constitutional petition. The petitioner had been convicted by a Summary Military Court under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether interference was warranted with the High Court's refusal to grant interim bail before examining the record of a pending constitutional petition. The Supreme Court held that since the matter was still at the preliminary motion stage in the High Court and the legal and factual points raised required examination by that court first, the petition for special leave to appeal should not be entertained. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that appellate interference with interlocutory orders declining interim bail at the pre-admission motion stage is generally unwarranted when the primary constitutional petition remains pending adjudication before the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court's refusal to grant interim bail at the motion stage of a constitutional petition?
- Should legal and factual contentions on the merits of a conviction be examined by the Supreme Court before the High Court has attended to them at a regular hearing?
- MUSA KHAN vs The STATE1979 SCMR 589 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which set aside the acquittal of the appellant, Musa Khan, and convicted him under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined the record, which revealed significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including an unconvincing motive, material contradictions between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence regarding injuries on the deceased, unexplained injuries on the accused's person, and doubts surrounding the prompt lodging of the first information report. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the appellant and that the High Court erred in interfering with the trial court's well-reasoned order of acquittal. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside an order of acquittal when the prosecution evidence was fraught with doubts and contradictions?
- Can injuries found on the person of an accused, which are not explained or owned by the prosecution, be used as an incriminating factor against him?
- Does a discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries inflicted warrant the rejection of eyewitness accounts?
- Whether delayed lodging of the first information report after police presence at the spot casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version?
- MURID HUSSAIN vs MANAGER, POLYPROPYLANE PRODUCTS LTD., KARACHI1979 PLC 490 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-07-24Read full judgment →
- MUREED HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE THOUGH PUNJAB LOCAL COUNCILS1979 PLD Lahore 919 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
- MUNTIZIMA COMMITTEE MASJID SYEDAN,RAWALPINDI AND 2 OTHERS vs Syed1979 CLC 553 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-29Read full judgment →
- MUNSHI vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 71 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-13Read full judgment →
- MUNSHI vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Karachi 488 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-24Read full judgment →
- Munshi MIR ZAMAN KHAN vs COLLECTOR, POONCH AND Anothers1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 20 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-02-27Read full judgment →
- MUNNA WWAR HUSSAIN AND Another vs REHMAT ALI1979 PLD Lahore 215 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-27Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMED vs UNIVERSITY OF BALUCHISTAN THROUGH THE CONTROLLER1979 PLD Quetta 131 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed to challenge the cancellation of the petitioner's Intermediate (F.Sc.) examination result and subsequent admission to the Bolan Medical College by the University of Baluchistan. The core legal questions involved whether the University could rescind a declared result and certificate after they had been acted upon, and whether the impugned orders violated principles of natural justice by not affording a pre-decisional hearing. A difference of opinion arose among the original bench members regarding the doctrine of locus poenitentiae and whether the petitioner acted fraudulently, leading to a reference to a third judge. The majority held that once the certificate had been acted upon and rights accrued (admission to medical college), the University could not recall it under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae, and that the petitioner's omissions constituted a bona fide irregularity rather than actionable fraud. The court laid down that executive and quasi-judicial authorities cannot exercise powers of rescission to the detriment of accrued rights once a decisive stage is reached, and that administrative authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice.
Questions settled- Whether an educational university can cancel an examination result after it has been acted upon and has created consequential rights for the student?
- Does the principle of locus poenitentiae preclude an authority from withdrawing an order once a decisive stage in its implementation has been reached?
- Whether the cancellation of an examination result without affording a show-cause notice or personal hearing violates the principles of natural justice?
- Whether the submission of an examination form containing technical rule violations without deliberate concealment amounts to fraud or a mere irregularity?
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, GUJRANWALA vs BARKAT BIBI AND 5 Other1979 SCMR 264 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that upheld the striking off of a tenant's defence in a rent restriction case. The core legal question was whether the tenant's failure to deposit rent in compliance with a court order under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance constituted 'wilful' default, and whether the tenant was denied adequate opportunity to explain the non-compliance before the defence was struck off. The Supreme Court held that the tenant's reliance on 'audit objections' as an excuse for non-payment was insufficient, as the objections were easily rectifiable and the failure to comply resulted from the tenant's own negligence. The Court affirmed that the default was wilful and that the tenant had been afforded sufficient opportunity to explain the non-compliance, rendering a separate detailed inquiry unnecessary. The key principle laid down is that administrative or audit objections do not absolve a tenant from the mandatory obligation to comply with court-ordered rent deposits, and failure to do so with due diligence constitutes wilful default warranting the striking off of the defence.
Questions settled- Does the existence of audit objections constitute a valid excuse for failing to comply with a court order to deposit rent under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Is a separate detailed inquiry required before a Rent Controller can strike off a tenant's defence for non-compliance with a rent deposit order?
- Does the failure to deposit rent in compliance with a court order due to negligence constitute wilful default?
- MUNDHOO AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 1060 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-06Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR vs RAZIA BEGUM AND 9 OtherP L D1979 Lahore 300 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-17Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR ALI KHAN vs NAJAM ABBAS AND 7 Other1979 PLD Lahore 346 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-07Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR AHMED vs SIND MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER1979 PLC 365 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-12Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 415 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-05Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ MUHAMMAD KHAN AHMADZAI vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND Another1979 SCMR 606 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an execution proceeding in the High Court of Sind concerning a money decree against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the authority to clarify or correct an earlier order regarding the properties subject to auction, specifically when that order contained a clerical error or confusion regarding the scope of an intervenor's objection. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted within its competence in clarifying the order. It determined that the initial order contained a clerical mistake stemming from an error in the intervenor's application, which created confusion regarding which properties were available for sale. The Court reasoned that the High Court was empowered to correct such clerical errors and technical defects to ensure the progress of execution proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the intervenor had explicitly narrowed their objection to a single property, and the Court was competent to act upon that statement. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the contention that the High Court had improperly exercised review powers, as the action was a necessary clarification and correction of the record.
Questions settled- Can a court clarify an order to correct a clerical error or confusion regarding the scope of property subject to execution?
- Is a formal review application required when a court corrects a clerical mistake or clarifies an order based on a party's statement?
- Does a court have the authority to act on a statement by an intervenor narrowing the scope of their objection during execution proceedings?
- MUMTAZ KHAN vs GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS. LTD., KARACHI1979 PLC 169 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-02-03Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ ALI vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 350 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-07Read full judgment →
- MUKHTIAR vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 851 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-19Read full judgment →
- MUKHTIAR ALI vs THE STATE---Opponent1979 P Cr. L J 108 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-26Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR SULTANA vs TASADAQ (TASADAQ HUSSAIN)PLD 1979 Lahore 34(1) · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking the transfer of a family suit. The core legal question concerns the appropriate forum and consolidation of cross-suits—specifically, a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and a suit for dissolution of marriage—pending in different cities. The Lahore High Court held that it is in the interest of justice and balance of convenience to have both related matrimonial suits tried together in one court. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and ordered the transfer of the respondent's suit from the Family Court at Bahawalpur to the Family Court at Multan where the petitioner's suit was pending. The key principle laid down is that where cross-suits regarding matrimonial disputes are instituted between the same parties in different courts, the balance of convenience dictates their consolidation and trial in a single court to avoid conflicting decisions and hardship.
Questions settled- Whether two related suits for restitution of conjugal rights and dissolution of marriage pending in different courts can be consolidated in one court?
- Does the balance of convenience serve as a ground for transferring a family suit from one city to another?
- Can a suit pending before a Family Court at Bahawalpur be transferred to a Family Court at Multan?
- MUHRAM AND Another vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 400 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-07Read full judgment →
- MUHARRAM vs The STATE1979 SCMR 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the refusal of the Sind High Court to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is facing trial for murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion arbitrarily or perversely in denying bail to the petitioner while granting it to a co-accused. The Supreme Court observed that the First Information Report specifically attributed a head injury caused by a hockey stick to the petitioner, which was corroborated by medical evidence indicating serious head injuries. The Court held that the High Court’s refusal to grant bail was a valid exercise of discretion, as the mere fact that a co-accused received bail did not necessitate the same relief for the petitioner, especially given the distinct allegations against him. The Court affirmed that bail is a discretionary matter and found no error in the lower court's decision. However, acknowledging the petitioner's prolonged incarceration, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, noting that the petitioner may re-apply for bail if inordinate delay persists.
Questions settled- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused automatically entitle another accused to bail?
- Is the refusal of bail by a High Court considered arbitrary when medical evidence supports specific allegations against the accused?
- Can an accused re-apply for bail on the grounds of inordinate delay in the trial proceedings?
- MUHAMNIAD RIAZ vs THE STATE1979 PLD Lahore 155 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case involves criminal appeals against convictions for abduction and rape. The primary legal question was whether the trial proceedings were vitiated because the Magistrate recorded evidence under the old warrant-case procedure and subsequently concluded the trial under the new procedure introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, without framing a formal charge until after some evidence was recorded. The Court held that the proceedings were not vitiated. It determined that evidence validly recorded under the prior procedure remains admissible, and the failure to frame a charge earlier constituted a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly as the appellants consented to the use of the previously recorded evidence and suffered no failure of justice. The Court established that in procedural matters, what is not expressly prohibited is impliedly permitted, and that procedural irregularities do not warrant reversal unless they result in a failure of justice. Consequently, the convictions were upheld, though sentences were reduced due to the significant delay in the trial process.
Questions settled- Does the transition from the old warrant-case procedure to the new procedure under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, automatically invalidate evidence recorded before the formal framing of a charge?
- Can a trial Magistrate rely on evidence recorded under the old procedure when the trial is concluded under the new procedure?
- Does an irregularity in the mode of trial, such as the timing of framing a charge, necessarily result in the vitiation of the entire proceedings?
- Under what circumstances can a sentence be reduced due to the delay in the conclusion of a trial?
- MUHAMMMD LUQMAN MIRZA vs SUMMARY MILITARY COURT No. 39, RAWALPINDI1979 SCMR 283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an Inter Court Appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the petitioner's conviction and sentence by a Summary Military Court under Martial Law Regulations 5, 13, and 33. The petitioner was convicted for participating in an unauthorized political protest procession and raising slogans against the armed forces. The core legal questions involved whether the conviction was sustainable on the evidence produced, whether the High Court could reappraise evidence in writ jurisdiction, and whether the proven acts constituted an offence under the cited Martial Law Regulations. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was based on proper and sufficient evidence appraised by the Military Court, that the High Court rightly declined to reappraise evidence in its writ jurisdiction, and that the petitioner's acts clearly fell within the mischief of Martial Law Regulations 5 and 13. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the High Court reappraise evidence in writ jurisdiction against the conviction recorded by a Summary Military Court?
- Whether participating in a political protest procession and raising slogans against the armed forces constitutes an offence under Martial Law Regulations 5 and 13?
- Does a petition fail when the conviction is based on proper evidence and is not a case of no evidence?
- MUHAMMD SHAFIQ WAHEED vs MUHAMMAD HASAN KHAN AND ANOTHER1979 P Cr. L J 906 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMADIQBAL KHAN NIAZI vs VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB1979 PLD Supreme Court 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a writ petition filed by a medical student who was expelled from Nishtar Medical College, Multan, for a period of three years following an inquiry by the College Disciplinary Committee regarding an assault on a professor. The Lahore High Court dismissed the student's writ petition and subsequent intra-court appeal, holding that the relevant provisions of the General Disciplinary Rules contained in the College Prospectus empowered the Principal to impose expulsion for a period exceeding one year. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prospectus rules properly construed empowered the Principal to rusticate or expel a student for a period exceeding one year, and whether the prospectus constituted valid subordinate legislation or a binding contractual code subject to strict construction. The Supreme Court held that the terms 'rusticate' and 'expel' were synonyms denoting temporary dismissal, and that Rule 4 limited the maximum period of rustication to one year. The Court further held that the prospectus was not a statutory instrument or a public representative bye-law, and that penal provisions within such domestic rules must be construed strictly and fairly. The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the impugned orders and declared the appellant's rustication valid for one year only.
Questions settled- Whether the terms rustication and expulsion in college disciplinary rules are synonyms limiting the maximum period of punishment to one year?
- Do college prospectus disciplinary rules carry statutory force akin to subordinate legislation by public representative bodies?
- Whether a domestic tribunal empowered by a college prospectus can impose penalties of extreme severity without express statutory guidelines?
- Does the principle against retrospective or differential penalties under Article 12 of the Constitution apply to the interpretation of domestic disciplinary rules in educational prospectuses?
- MUHAMMAD, NIAZ vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, ZONE `D', QUETTA AND 41979 PLD Quetta 179 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of a Summary Military Court to try him for scheduled offences under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether a Military Court, established under Martial Law Order No. 4, could assume jurisdiction over offences exclusively triable by a Special Judge under the Act, in the absence of any act of resistance to Martial Law. The Court held that the Military Court lacked jurisdiction. It determined that the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, is a special law with overriding provisions granting exclusive jurisdiction to the Special Judge for scheduled offences. Martial Law Order No. 4, being a general law, does not implicitly repeal or override the Act. The key principle laid down is the application of generalia specialibus non derogant, meaning general legislation cannot override specific legislation without explicit intent. Consequently, ordinary citizens cannot be tried by Military Courts for offences under ordinary laws unless such offences were committed while resisting Martial Law itself. The Court declared the cognizance taken by the Military Court to be without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Does a Military Court have jurisdiction to try an ordinary citizen for scheduled offences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958?
- Does the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant apply to the conflict between Martial Law Order No. 4 and the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958?
- Can a Military Court try an ordinary citizen for an offence under ordinary law if the offence was not committed while resisting Martial Law?
- Does the absence of a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for submitting a challan to a Military Court invalidate the cognizance taken by such a court?
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs SULTAN KHAN AND 4 OTHERSs1979 P Cr. LJ 213 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAKIR vs NISHAT CLEANERS, HYDERABAD1979 PLC 117 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-06-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUSUF ETC. vs BOARD OF REVENUE Erc.1979 CLC 284 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUNUS vs THE STATE AND Another1979 SCMR 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the trial court, a decision upheld by the High Court. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the eye-witnesses were unreliable due to their relationship with the deceased and that the First Information Report (F.I.R.) was recorded at the crime scene rather than the police station. Additionally, the appellant contended that his injuries, which remained unexplained by the prosecution, suggested a potential plea of self-defence, and that mitigating circumstances warranted a lesser sentence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the veracity of eye-witnesses and the timing of the F.I.R. were supported by evidence and did not warrant interference. The Court further noted that the appellant's injuries were consistent with an accidental fall, not a scuffle, and that the alleged mitigating factors did not render the death sentence illegal. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence, while noting the appellant's right to seek executive clemency.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries on the accused's person automatically cast doubt on the prosecution case?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the credibility of eye-witnesses?
- Is a sentence of death illegal merely because the High Court declined to exercise its discretion to impose a lesser penalty based on alleged mitigating circumstances?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND 3 Ott Xs1979 PLD Karachi 430 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The provided judgment text is empty. Consequently, it is impossible to provide a summary of the nature of the matter, the core legal questions, the court's decision, or the key principles laid down.
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF AZAD vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 3 Others1979 P Cr. L J 763 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs THE STATE1979 PLD Lahore 521 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs SAID AMIR1979 PLD Peshawar 20 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-12-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs FAIZUDDIN AND ANOTHER1979 CLC 247 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND ANOTHER vs Mst. RASHIDA ZOHRA1979 CLC 444 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND 2 Other vs Tim STATE1979 PLD Peshawar 206 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-07-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 695 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNIS AND 3 Otheltss vs THE STATE1979 PLD Lahore 391 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB TAHIR vs SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT JAIL, GUJRANWALA1979 PLD Lahore 46 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQUB Alias MAHNU ETC. vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND Another1979 P Cr. L J 428 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD UMRAN vs MALIK AMAN AND Other1979 SCMR 481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the Peshawar High Court, which decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit for possession of land. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff's suit was time-barred under Article 142 of the Limitation Act 1908 due to an alleged failure to state the date of dispossession, and whether the defendant had established a plea of adverse possession by growing trees on the disputed strip of land. The Supreme Court held that since the plaintiff was the acknowledged owner of the land and the defendant raised a plea of adverse possession, the burden lay on the defendant to prove the precise date and overt acts perfecting prescriptive title, which the defendant failed to do, and that trees standing on the owner's land belong to the owner. The key principle laid down is that where a defendant sets up a plea of adverse possession against the rightful owner, the burden of proving prescriptive title through clear overt acts rests entirely on the defendant.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff in a suit for possession of land is required to prove the date of dispossession when the defendant sets up a plea of adverse possession?
- Does the mere act of growing trees on another person's land constitute sufficient evidence to establish adverse possession?
- Upon whom does the burden lie to prove prescriptive title when adverse possession is pleaded against the rightful owner?
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 579 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1979 SCMR 437 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's application for the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against him under sections 468, 471, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether criminal proceedings regarding an alleged forged agreement should be quashed simply because the genuineness of the same agreement is simultaneously being adjudicated in a civil court. The Supreme Court held that there is no bar in law to civil and criminal actions continuing at the same time, and that the mere summoning of the petitioner by the magistrate does not constitute a fit stage for quashing proceedings. The key principle laid down is that while simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings are permissible, a party may seek quashment at a later stage if evidence reveals that the matter involves purely civil liability and the criminal prosecution constitutes an abuse of the court's process.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings and civil actions regarding the same document continue at the same time?
- Is the mere summoning of an accused by a magistrate an appropriate stage for the quashment of criminal proceedings?
- When can a party apply for the quashment of criminal proceedings on the ground that the matter involves only civil liability?
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 635 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TAYYAB KHAN vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LAHORE1979 PLC 377 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenge the orders of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which held that workers aggrieved by termination of service are restricted to the remedy under Section 25-A(6) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and cannot avail the grievance procedure under Section 25-A(1)-(4). The core legal question is whether the remedy under Section 25-A(6) is exclusive or merely an additional, optional remedy for workers. The Court held that the provisions of Section 25-A(1)-(4) and Section 25-A(6) are not mutually exclusive. The term 'notwithstanding' in subsection (6) does not repeal or set aside the pre-existing rights under subsections (1)-(4) but rather provides an alternative, direct route to the Labour Court. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was to supplement, not restrict, workers' rights, and the use of the word 'may' in subsection (6) grants workers the discretion to choose between the domestic grievance procedure or direct recourse to the Labour Court. Consequently, the impugned orders were declared to be without lawful authority, and the cases were remanded for fresh decisions.
Questions settled- Is the remedy provided under Section 25-A(6) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 exclusive for workers aggrieved by termination of service?
- Can a worker choose to follow the grievance procedure under Section 25-A(1) to (4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 instead of filing a direct petition under Section 25-A(6)?
- Does the use of the word 'notwithstanding' in Section 25-A(6) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 repeal the rights provided in subsections (1) to (4) of the same section?
- MUHAMMAD TAFIQ Alias TARI vs THE STATE1979 PLD Lahore 511 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SULTAN AHMED vs MESSRS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI1979 PLC 492 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-07-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SULAIMAN MALIK AND ANOTHER vs ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION1979 CLC 48 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This administration suit was filed by the parents of the deceased, Dr. Altaf Begum Shapero, seeking the distribution of her estate according to Sunni Hanafi Muslim Law. The deceased, a Pakistani national domiciled in Karachi, had executed a will in Canada in favor of a foreign trust, naming her minor daughters as beneficiaries. The core legal questions were whether the deceased was a Sunni Hanafi Muslim, whether her estate was governed by the law of her domicile, and whether a will bequeathing property to heirs without the consent of other heirs is valid under Islamic law. The Court held that the deceased was a Sunni Hanafi Muslim and that her estate must be administered under the laws of Pakistan, her place of domicile. The Court further ruled that the will was invalid and inoperative because it bequeathed property to heirs without the consent of the other legal heirs, a principle firmly established in Islamic jurisprudence. Consequently, the Court ordered the administration of the estate and its distribution among the parents and daughters according to their respective shares under Muslim law.
Questions settled- Is a will made by a Muslim in favor of an heir valid without the consent of the other heirs?
- Does the law of the country of domicile govern the administration of a deceased person's movable estate?
- Can a court presume a person is a Sunni Hanafi Muslim in the absence of evidence to the contrary in Pakistan?
- Does a summons sent by registered post constitute sufficient service under the General Clauses Act 1897?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs Tee STATE1979 PLD Karachi 229 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application is directed against the appellate order of the Additional Commissioner rejecting the petitioner's application for quashment of proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. The core legal question involves determining whether the police report and the subsequent trial conducted by the Tribunal satisfied the mandatory procedural and substantive requirements of the Act, including the proper specification of acts, details of time and place, and valid grounds for taking cognizance and issuing a non-bailable warrant. The Sindh High Court held that the proceedings suffered from severe perversion of procedure, vague allegations devoid of nexus to the statutory clauses, and non-compliance with mandatory provisions regarding the issuance of warrants and conduct of inquiries. The ratio decidendi is that provisions of special preventive statutes affecting the liberty of citizens are mandatory and must be strictly followed, requiring tangible proof and specific particulars rather than generalized police assertions. Consequently, the High Court set aside the orders of both the Tribunal and the Additional Commissioner.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 prescribing the circumstances and mode of initiating proceedings are mandatory and must be strictly followed?
- Can a Tribunal take cognizance under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 upon a police report that merely reproduces the language of the statute without giving particulars of acts, time, and place?
- What are the legal prerequisites under section 5 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 for a Tribunal to issue a non-bailable warrant instead of a summons?
- Does a person's expression of willingness to furnish security dispense with the necessity of a proper judicial inquiry under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Karachi 560 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil matter originating from the Sindh High Court reported in PLD 1979 Karachi 560. The judgment addresses labor law disputes involving the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question revolved around the rights of a workman and the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the orders passed by the Tribunal were in accordance with law and did not warrant constitutional interference. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact recorded by competent labor tribunals based on evidence shall not be lightly disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction unless shown to be perverse or without jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with factual findings of a lower forum?
- When can the High Court interfere with the orders of the Labour Appellate Tribunal under constitutional jurisdiction?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs SHAH PASAND KHAN AND Other1979 SCMR 619 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which set aside the ad interim injunction granted to the petitioner by the Additional District Judge. The petitioner had filed a suit seeking a declaration and a temporary injunction to restrain his 120-year-old grandfather from alienating his immovable property, alleging that the grandfather was of failing mental and physical condition and under the undue influence of other defendants. The core legal question was whether a presumptive heir can restrain an ancestor from alienating property during their lifetime based on an expectation of inheritance. The Supreme Court held that under Muhammadan Law, a presumptive heir has no vested right in praesenti in the property of an ancestor and possesses only a spes successionis, which is a mere expectation of succeeding by survival. Consequently, a presumptive heir cannot restrain an ancestor from dealing with or disposing of their property during their lifetime. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether a presumptive heir has a vested right in praesenti in the property of an ancestor during the ancestor's lifetime?
- Does Muhammadan Law recognise spes successionis or an expectation of succeeding to the property of another by survival?
- Can a presumptive heir maintain an action to restrain an ancestor from disposing of their immovable property?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs MUHAMMAD SHAFT AND 4 Other1979 PLD Lahore 730 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Ems vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 185 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND ANOTHER vs ALLAH DITTA1979 CLC 82 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs THE STATE And 2 Other1979 SCMR 26 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the High Court's order cancelling the petitioner's bail in a case involving an offence under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, accused of causing a permanent eye injury to the complainant with a firearm, had initially been granted bail by an Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court subsequently cancelled this bail, noting the gravity of the injury, the fact that the occurrence happened in broad daylight, and that the petitioner was apprehended on the spot with the crime weapon. The core legal question was whether the High Court's cancellation of bail was justified given the existence of a cross-case and the petitioner's contentions regarding medical evidence and procedural delays. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the bail cancellation was proper due to the severity of the offence and the incriminating circumstances. The key principle affirmed is that bail may be properly cancelled where the initial grant of bail by a lower court is found to be improper upon a judicial appraisal of the material facts, particularly in heinous offences.
Questions settled- Can a High Court cancel bail granted by an Additional Sessions Judge if the initial grant is found to be improper?
- Does the existence of a cross-case automatically entitle an accused to bail in a case involving a serious injury?
- Is the recovery of a crime weapon at the scene of the crime a relevant factor for the court to consider when deciding on bail cancellation?