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.
- MRS. JAMILA LATIF vs GHULAM YAZDANI KHAN AND 4 OTHERS1979 CLC 29 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-11Read full judgment →
- Mrs. FEROZA ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD AKHTAR AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 469 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-27Read full judgment →
- MR. ZULFIKAR ALI BHUTTO vs The STATE1979 SCMR 427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal miscellaneous petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, in a criminal review petition, seeking the recall and nomination of two retired or indisposed judges (Mr. Justice Qaisar Khan and Mr. Justice Waheeduddin Ahmad) as ad hoc judges under Article 182 of the Constitution to sit on the Bench for the disposal of the review petition. The core legal question is whether the bench hearing a review petition must be reconstituted to include judges who retired or fell ill during the original appeal proceedings. The Supreme Court held that under Rule 6 of Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, the review application shall be posted before the same Bench that delivered the judgment, provided they are available, and since the judgment under review was delivered by seven available judges, there is no justification to recall retired or incapacitated judges. The key principle laid down is that review petitions must be heard by the surviving members of the original bench that delivered the judgment, and benches will not be altered or reconstituted based on extra-judicial considerations or the absence of judges due to unavoidable circumstances like retirement or prolonged illness.
Questions settled- Whether a retired judge can be recalled as an ad hoc judge under Article 182 of the Constitution to sit on a review petition?
- Does Rule 6 of Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules require a review application to be posted before the same Bench that delivered the judgment?
- Can a bench continue hearing a case when one of its members becomes incapacitated due to prolonged illness?
- MOSO AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 466 · Sindh High Court · 1978-07-15Read full judgment →
- MONAWAR JEHAN vs MUHAMMAD SARFARAZ1979 PLD Lahore 32 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-03Read full judgment →
- MOHAN vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 722 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-15Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs SULTAN AHMED1979 CLC 394 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-06Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD SHER vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 351 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-09Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD QASIM vs PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1979 CLC 453 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-09Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD BASHIR vs S. D. M., CITY TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD AND 3 OTHERS--1979 P Cr. L J 746 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-07Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD ALI GHANI KHAN vs HABIB BANK LTD., KARACHI1979 PLC 156 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-07-29Read full judgment →
- Miss SAFIA HAMEED vs THE CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE, MEDICAL1979 PLD Quetta 66 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was brought by an unsuccessful candidate challenging the refusal of her admission to the Bolan Medical College, Quetta, for the academic session of 1978 against a reserved seat for District Pishin. The Selection Committee refused admission on the ground that the petitioner's father had previously possessed two domicile certificates simultaneously, rendering her bona fide residence doubtful. The core legal question was whether the Selection Committee had the authority to question or cancel a domicile certificate issued by a competent District Magistrate and doubt the applicant's bona fide residence on such grounds. The Balochistan High Court held that the Selection Committee has no power or authority to disturb or cancel a domicile certificate issued by a District Magistrate, which carries the sanctity of a public document and provides presumptive proof of permanent residence. The Court ruled that the refusal of admission was without legal authority and directed the petitioner's admission, laying down that selection bodies cannot look behind valid statutory domicile certificates to determine residency.
Questions settled- Does the Selection Committee have the power or authority to disturb or cancel a domicile certificate issued by a District Magistrate?
- Does a domicile certificate carry the sanctity of a public document providing presumptive proof of permanent residence?
- Can an applicant be refused admission to a medical college on the ground of simultaneous possession of previous domicile certificates when one has been validly cancelled?
- Whether an order refusing admission to a candidate on fallacious and arbitrary grounds is passed without legal authority?
- Miss S. MALL vs ABDUL RAZZAQ AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Quetta 90 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-11-24Read full judgment →
- Miss MEHER SULTANA AND 2 Other vs PAKISTAN PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS1979 PLD Karachi 257 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-11Read full judgment →
- Miss FARAH NAZ vs The STATE1979 PLD Lahore 477 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-12Read full judgment →
- Miss BENAZEER BHUTTO vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1979 P Cr. L J 62 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-13Read full judgment →
- Miss ASSIA vs INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Etc.1979 PLD Supreme Court 949 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two civil petitions for special leave to appeal against a consolidated order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner-assessee's applications under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, refusing to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer questions of law. The petitioner, a film artist, challenged the rejection of payment certificates issued by film producers by the Income-tax Officer, who instead estimated her income based on her standard of living, wealth statements, and prevailing industry practices. The core legal question was whether the income-tax authorities were justified in rejecting the producer certificates without direct positive falsification and whether the appellate order gave rise to a referable question of law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the income-tax authorities possess wide discretion to assess income to the best of their judgment and are not bound to accept unverified certificates or unreliable accounts, and that findings regarding the unreliability of accounts are questions of fact. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's refusal to order a reference, establishing that concurrent factual findings by tax authorities based on material evidence and standard of living do not raise questions of law warranting a reference.
Questions settled- Whether the Income-tax Officer is bound to accept payment certificates produced by an assessee in the absence of written agreements and corroborative evidence?
- Does the question of unreliability of an assessee's accounts constitute a question of fact or a question of law?
- Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in refusing to refer questions under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, when the findings are based purely on appraisal of facts?
- Can income-tax authorities rely on parallel cases, living standards, and wealth statements to make a best judgment assessment?
- Mirza ZAHID BAIG vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Karachi 56 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-15Read full judgment →
- Mirza MUHAMMAD AKRAM BEG AND 5 Other vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 935 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
- Mirza MUHAMMAD AHMAD vs Mirza AMJAD BEG1979 PLD Lahore 865 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-04Read full judgment →
- Mirza IQRAR BEG vs M. V. HANNA N1979 PLD Karachi 620 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-24Read full judgment →
- Mirza ANWAR BEYG vs PRINCIPAL INFORMATION OFFICER, PRESS INFORMATION1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 141 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1979-01-01Read full judgment →
- MIRPURK HAS SUGAR MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs Moulvi MUHAMMAD SALEHAND 31979 CLC 7 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-11Read full judgment →
- MIRO vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 191 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-03Read full judgment →
- MIRA JAN vs THF STATE1979 P Cr. L J 98 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-12-03Read full judgment →
- MIR ZAMAN vs THE STATE-1979 P Cr. L J 305 · Sindh High Court · 1978-07-31Read full judgment →
- Mir MUHAMMAD BALUCH vs MESSRS INDUS JUTE MILLS LTD., THATTA1979 PLC 110 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-02-09Read full judgment →
- Mir ALLAHI BUX vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 887 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-30Read full judgment →
- Mir AJAB KHAN vs SECRETARY, FOOD, PUNJAB AND 2 Other1979 SCMR 425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's depot authorisation in District Campbellpur. The core legal question concerns the scope of interference by the High Court under constitutional writ jurisdiction regarding concurrent findings of fact made by administrative authorities. The Supreme Court held that findings of fact based on material before the competent authorities cannot be interfered with under writ jurisdiction, nor is the appreciation of evidence permissible. Furthermore, technical objections regarding multiple orders passed by the District Magistrate cannot be raised for the first time before the appellate or revisional forums if not properly pressed, particularly when no violation of natural justice occurred. The key principle laid down is that superior courts will not disturb concurrent factual findings of administrative tribunals in constitutional jurisdiction where such findings are supported by some evidence.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by administrative authorities in its writ jurisdiction?
- Whether the appreciation of evidence is permissible under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does a technical defect regarding multiple administrative orders of the same effect invalidate the cancellation of a depot authorisation if not raised before lower authorities?
- MIFTAH FAZALE HAQ vs THE PUNJAB CIVIL SERVICES (APPELLATE) TRIBUNAL, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS1979 PLC 352 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-03Read full judgment →
- Mian, JAZHAR ALI AND 6 OTHERS vs THE MEMBER1I, FEDERAL LAND1979 CLC 478 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-15Read full judgment →
- Mian SULTAN SIKANDAR ZULQERNAIN ETC. vs THE STATE THE STATE ASGHAR1979 SCMR 567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-17Read full judgment →
- Mian NAZIR AHMAD vs SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, JHELUM AND 4 OTHERS--1979 P Cr. L J 912 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-06Read full judgment →
- Mian MUNAWAR-UD-DIN vs THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, FEDERAL MINISTRY OP COMMUNICATION, ISLAMABAD1979 PLD Lahore 699 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenged the suspension and subsequent extension of suspension of the petitioner, a General Manager of Telecommunications, ordered initially on oral approval and subsequently extended in writing, pursuant to proceedings initiated for 'inefficiency'. The core questions were whether an employee could be suspended on a charge of inefficiency under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973; whether an oral approval of the competent authority constitutes a valid order; and whether suspension can be granted retrospectively without prior approval. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that Rule 5(1) limits suspension strictly to charges of subversion, corruption, or misconduct, thus excluding inefficiency. Furthermore, the Court held that all public orders, especially presidential orders governed by Article 48(3) of the Constitution, must be in writing. Approval of the competent authority is a mandatory condition precedent prior to suspension, executive orders cannot operate retrospectively, and the government is legally bound by its own departmental interpretations.
Questions settled- Can a government servant be suspended from service under Rule 5(1) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 on a charge of inefficiency?
- Can a public functionary or the President pass a legally valid administrative or penal order orally without reducing it to writing?
- Is prior approval of the competent authority a mandatory condition precedent before an authorized officer can suspend a government servant under Rule 5(1) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973?
- Can an executive order extending or directing suspension of a civil servant be given retrospective effect?
- Is the government bound to follow its own official interpretation and departmental practice regarding administrative rules?
- Mian MUHAMMAD KHALIL vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMPANIES CIRCLE, FAISALABAD AND 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 836 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-19Read full judgment →
- Mian MUHAMMAD KHALIL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMPANY CIRCLE, FAISALABAD Ano 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 703 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-19Read full judgment →
- Mian MOHAMMAD BASHIR AND ANOTHER vs INCOMETAX OFFICER, KARACHI1979 P Cr. L J 574 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-21Read full judgment →
- Mian MAHMUD ALI KASURI AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1979 CLC 370 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-10Read full judgment →
- Mian GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs Maul vi FAZAL HAQ AND ANOTHER1979 CLC 518 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two second appeals challenging the judgments of the District Judge, which arose from declaratory suits filed by the respondent to declare pre-emption decrees null and void. The core legal question was whether a compromise decree entered into by a general attorney lacking express authority and merely attested by the counsel was binding on the principal. The Lahore High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts—that the counsel had not exercised his authority to compromise and that the attorney lacked the power to do so—were conclusive and not open to challenge in second appeal. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact and inferences drawn therefrom by lower courts cannot be displaced in second appeal unless a genuine misconstruction of foundational documents is established.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in second appeal?
- Whether an advocate's mere attestation of an unauthorized attorney's compromise statement amounts to an exercise of the advocate's authority to compromise?
- Does an ordinary power of attorney implicitly confer authority to enter into a compromise on behalf of a principal?
- Mian ABDUL HAMEED PURI AND 5 Other vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1979 PLD Lahore 252 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns the refusal of the State Bank of Pakistan to issue duplicate Industrial Bonds to the petitioners after the original bonds, issued as compensation for acquired shares, were misdelivered by the postal service to an unauthorized third party. The core legal questions were whether these bonds qualified as 'Government Security' under the Securities Act, 1920, and whether their misdelivery constituted 'loss or theft' necessitating the issuance of duplicates. The Court held that the bonds are indeed 'Government Security,' as the government incurred a loan by operation of law. Furthermore, the Court determined that the misdelivery of the bonds to an unauthorized recipient amounted to theft under Section 378 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and consequently, the bonds were 'lost or stolen' within the meaning of the relevant legislation. The Court ruled that the Bank is legally obligated to issue duplicate bonds under Section 21 of the Securities Act, 1920, provided the petitioners furnish the required indemnity against potential claims. This judgment establishes that statutory acquisition of property creates a loan obligation and that misdelivery of securities constitutes a loss triggering replacement rights.
Questions settled- Do Industrial Bonds issued as compensation for acquired shares constitute 'Government Security' under the Securities Act, 1920?
- Does the misdelivery of securities by the postal service to an unauthorized party constitute 'loss or theft' under the Securities Act, 1920?
- Can the State Bank of Pakistan be compelled to issue duplicate securities upon the provision of an indemnity bond under Section 21 of the Securities Act, 1920?
- Does the acquisition of property by the government through operation of law constitute a loan contracted by the government?
- MFSSRS AMIN FABRICS LTD. vs SIND LABOUR COURT No. VI, HYDERABAD And Another1979 PLC 207 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-12-07Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ZARRIN MIRZA AND ANOTHER vs MANAGEMENT OF WYETH1979 PLC 429 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-16Read full judgment →
- MESSRS UNION COLD STORAGE COMPANY LTD. vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND 21979 PLC 185 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-14Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SURAJ GHEE INDUSTRIES LTD. vs PRESIDENT, SURAJ GHEE INDUSTRIES1979 PLC 45 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-08-15Read full judgment →
- MESSRS STANMAR COMPANIA MARITIMA AND Another vs SUB MARTIAL LAW1979 SCMR 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, owners of a sea-going vessel, challenged orders issued by the Sub-Martial Law Administrator permitting the off-loading of cargo from their arrested vessel. The High Court dismissed their writ petition, holding that necessary parties were not impleaded and that extraordinary jurisdiction could not be utilized to settle a private civil dispute. The petitioners sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, while the Advocate-General conceded that the impugned orders lacked legal sanction though issued bona fide to protect shippers' interests. The Supreme Court held that the orders of the Martial Law Authorities lacked legal sanction and had no legal effect on the rights of the parties under the relevant law. Since the cargo had already been off-loaded and no operative order was sought, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed after clarifying the correct legal position. The key principle established is that administrative or martial law actions lacking legal backing cannot affect the substantive legal rights of parties.
Questions settled- Do orders issued by Martial Law Authorities without legal sanction affect the legal rights of parties?
- Can the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court be utilized to settle a civil dispute between parties?
- Will leave to appeal be granted when the impugned orders are declared to have no legal effect and the primary relief has already been rendered infructuous?
- MESSRS SIND FLOUR MILL Co. LTD. vs Mst. KARIMA1979 PLC 166 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-08-04Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SHALIMAR LTD., KARACHI vs RAISUDDIN SIDDIQUI AND 3 arms1979 CLC 338 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court appeal arose from a suit filed by the appellant, a private limited company, seeking a declaration, injunction, and recovery of documents. The appellant contended that seven agreements for the purchase of agricultural land, executed in the name of respondent No. 1, were entered into benami for the benefit of the appellant company (both before and after its incorporation). The core legal questions were whether the agreements were executed benami for the appellant's benefit, whether the suit was maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 without a prayer for possession or specific performance, and whether the suit was incompetent for failing to seek relief against subsequent transferees. The Sindh High Court held that the suit was maintainable under Section 42 as possession remained with the sellers and was not in issue. However, on the merits, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove the benami nature of the transactions. The Court laid down that the most critical criterion for establishing a benami transaction is the source of the purchase money at the time of inception, and the burden of proof lies heavily on the party asserting the benami character.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for declaration and recovery of documents is maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 without seeking the consequential relief of possession when the possession remains with third-party sellers?
- What is the primary criterion to determine the character of a benami transaction where a property or agreement is claimed to be held for the benefit of another?
- Can a company claim the benefit of agreements executed by its promoters prior to its incorporation under Section 23(g) of the Specific Relief Act 1877 if there is no proof that the contracts were intended for the company's benefit at their inception?
- Is a declaratory suit incompetent if the plaintiff fails to seek cancellation of subsequent agreements or relief against subsequent transferees whose interest in the suit property was known to the plaintiff?
- MESSRS SHAHI BOTTLERS LTD., LAHORE vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD Arm 5 OTHERS1979 PLC 424 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had condoned the delay in filing grievance petitions by retrenched employees and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for a decision on merits. The petitioner, an employer, argued that no appeal lay against the Labour Court's initial dismissal of the petitions, that the delay was not sufficiently explained, and that the employees were estopped from pursuing the claims due to the Collective Bargaining Agent's prior representations. The High Court held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal possessed the jurisdiction to decide the question of limitation, and its decision to condone delay, even if arguably incorrect, could not be characterized as acting without lawful authority under the writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, read with the Standing Orders Ordinance, provides a comprehensive remedial framework for workmen, including appellate remedies. The Court concluded that an authority with jurisdiction to entertain a matter inherently possesses the jurisdiction to decide questions of limitation, and thus dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does an authority with jurisdiction to entertain a matter also possess the jurisdiction to decide questions of limitation?
- Can a High Court interfere with an order condoning delay under its writ jurisdiction if the lower tribunal had the authority to entertain the matter?
- Does the remedy provided under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, include the right to appeal against a Labour Court's decision?
- MESSRS SHAFQUAT SILK FACTORY vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SECOND SIND1979 PLC 400 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-06Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SHABNUM SILK MILLS, KARACHI vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD1979 PLC 129 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-02-08Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SARGROH OIL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs MESSRS EUROPEAN GRAIN AND SHIPPING LTD1979 PLD Lahore 368 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-22Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SABIR SILK MILLS LTu,, LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs Sh. MUHAMMAD AMIN1979 CLC 498 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSRS RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE EMPLOYEES UNION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE1979PLC 112 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-07-01Read full judgment →
- MESSRS RASHID TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs BAKHT ZAMAN AND 2 Other1979 PLD Karachi 204 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-11Read full judgment →
- MESSRS QUALITY BUILDERS LTD., KARACHI vs MESSRS J. P. BROCKHOVEN V. V.1979 PLD Karachi 668 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order addresses two applications: one for a temporary injunction and another for action against defendant No. 1 for breach of an ad interim order. The dispute arose from an alleged sub-contract for civil works within the Port Qasim Project, where the plaintiffs claimed a concluded sub-contract with defendant No. 1, the main contractor, and sought to restrain defendant No. 1 from awarding the sub-contract to another party (defendant No. 8) or executing the work themselves. The court dismissed the application for temporary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case. It reasoned that even if a concluded contract existed, it was for services and thus not specifically enforceable under Section 56(f) of the Specific Relief Act. The court further clarified that Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act, concerning negative covenants, cannot be invoked to indirectly enforce a positive agreement that is not specifically enforceable, particularly where the implied negative stipulation is not severable or specific. The court also dismissed the application for breach of injunction, finding that defendant No. 1's act of hiring equipment and staff to perform the work directly did not constitute 'awarding the contract' to another party in violation of the ad interim order.
Questions settled- Can a temporary injunction be granted to prevent the breach of a contract for services that is not specifically enforceable?
- Does Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act allow for the enforcement of an implied negative covenant when the positive agreement is not specifically enforceable?
- What criteria must be met for a negative stipulation to be enforced by injunction under Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act?
- Does hiring equipment and staff to perform work directly constitute a breach of an injunction prohibiting the awarding of a contract to another party?
- Is a general positive undertaking in a contract to do a thing sufficient to imply a negative agreement not to do the contrary for the purpose of an injunction?
- MESSRS PARAMOUNT BOOK STALL, KARACHI vs Mst. NOOK BAI1979 PLC 462 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-07-24Read full judgment →
- MESSRS OLYMPIA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs FAZAL WAHID1979 PLC 502 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-07-30Read full judgment →
- MESSRS OLYMPIA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs ABDUL1979 PL C 154 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-07-22Read full judgment →
- MESSRS NATIONAL TYRE & RUBBER Co. vs SINDH LABOUR COURT NO,III1979 PLC 440 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-26Read full judgment →
- MESSRS NATIONAL & GRINDLAYS BANK LTD., KARACHI vs HOMI F. BEHRANA1979 PLD Karachi 692 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was directed against the appellate order of the Sind Labour Court maintaining the Junior Labour Court's decision to reinstate a bank employee dismissed for defalcation. The core legal questions involved whether a time-barred grievance application under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance could be legally condoned without sufficient cause, and whether labor courts could interfere with a domestic inquiry's findings where the employee admitted guilt. The High Court held that the grievance application was clearly barred by limitation, that delay cannot be condoned without explaining each day's delay, and that domestic inquiry findings regarding bank fraud and loss of confidence should not be lightly interfered with. The key principles laid down are that labor courts must strictly enforce limitation periods for labor grievances and that employer discretion in dispensing with the services of bank employees involved in financial defalcations warrants no interference when legal formalities are fulfilled.
Questions settled- Whether an application under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation is maintainable without a proper and sufficient explanation for each day's delay?
- Can a labor court interfere with the findings of a domestic inquiry where a bank employee admitted to participating in financial defalcation?
- Whether an accountant holding a senior rank in a bank is competent to issue a charge-sheet to a subordinate employee in disciplinary proceedings?
- Whether labor courts can substitute their own judgment for the employer's discretion in dispensing with the services of bank employees involved in fraud?
- MESSRS MODERN SILK MILLS LTD., LAHORE vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME1979 PLD Lahore 135 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-23Read full judgment →
- MESSRS MAHBOOB SILK MILLS, KARACHI vs ABDUL HAQ1979 PLC 150 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-02-07Read full judgment →
- MESSRS MACDONALD LYYTON & COMPANY LTD, vs MESSRS AIRPORTS1979 PLD Karachi 444 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSRS LUCKY SILK MILLS vs KHALIQUR REHMAN1979 PLC 5 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-10-17Read full judgment →
- MESSRS LOVABLE SARINA (PAKISTAN) LTD., LAHORE vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 3 Other1979 PLD Lahore 246 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-28Read full judgment →
- MESSRS LADHA SILK MILLS, KARACHI vs LADHA SILK MILLS WORKERS' UNION1979 PLD Karachi 99 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-03Read full judgment →
- MESSRS KASHMIR CAP HOUSE, LAHORE vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEPLD.1979 Lahore 162 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSRS K. S. B. PUMPS Co. LTD., LAHORE vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI THROUGH THE1979 PLD Karachi 269 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-17Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ITTEHAD STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS, RAWALPINDI vs THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB, LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE AND 3 Other1979 PLD Lahore 460 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSRS INTERNATIONAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY, LAHORE vs THE CHIEF1979 CLC 318 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSRS IBRAHIM SONS vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI, WEST1979 PLD Karachi 102 · Sindh High Court · 1978-07-25Read full judgment →
- MESSRS HAMEED MASOOD & ASSOCIATES vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE1979 PLD Lahore 453 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-15Read full judgment →
- MESSRS GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs Syed KHALIL MUSTAFA AND ANOTHER1979 PLC 173 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-05-18Read full judgment →
- MESSRS FOUR FRIENDS vs DOMEX BORIC ETC.S1979S C M R 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had previously dismissed a civil petition for special leave to appeal. The petitioner, a company, had initially sought a temporary injunction to restrain the Water and Power Development Authority from finalizing payments to a respondent while the petitioner's application to sue in forma pauperis was pending. The Supreme Court had previously held that until permission to sue in forma pauperis was granted, no plaint existed, rendering the provisions for temporary injunctions inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court noted prima facie evidence that the petitioner's claim had already been satisfied. In the review petition, the petitioner argued that since permission to sue in forma pauperis had now been granted, the previous order should be reviewed. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the subsequent grant of permission to sue in forma pauperis did not invalidate the correctness of the previous order, which was based on the circumstances existing at that time, and noted that the petitioner had already renewed its prayer for relief before the trial court.
Questions settled- Can a temporary injunction be granted under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 before permission to sue in forma pauperis is granted?
- Does the subsequent grant of permission to sue in forma pauperis justify a review of a previous order dismissing a petition for temporary injunction?
- Is a review petition maintainable when the original order was based on the legal circumstances existing at the time of the decision?
- Messrs FINE ART DYERS AND Printerss vs Haji ABDUL RASOOL AND Othfrss1979 SCMR 318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning an eviction dispute over a plot in Karachi, where landlords sought the ejectment of their tenants under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 on the ground of default in rent payment. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the eviction application, holding that no default occurred due to a temporary forfeiture of the landlords' title by the government. Upon appeal, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision and ordered eviction, a view largely upheld by the High Court of Sind, which found that tenants were unjustified in withholding rent after the landlords' title was formally restored. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the tenants' petition, holding that once a landlord's title is restored and notice is given under Section 13-A of the Ordinance, tenants have no justification to withhold rent or scrutinize the landlord's title, especially when they are estopped from questioning the status of the landlord from whom they originally rented the property.
Questions settled- Whether tenants are justified in withholding rent during the period when the landlord's title to the property stands forfeited by the government?
- Can tenants refuse to pay rent and question the title of their landlord after the landlord's title has been restored and notice has been served under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Are tenants estopped from questioning the status of their landlord from whom they originally took the property on rent?
- MESSRS FAZAL SHAFIQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs MEHR SULTAN1979 PLC 135 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-06-12Read full judgment →
- MESSRS EVERDAY PICTURES LTD. vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 3 Other1979 PLD Karachi 155 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges orders passed under the Censorship of Films Act, 1963, suspending and subsequently decertifying the film "Begam Jan" in the Province of Sindh. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioner, as a sole distributor holding exhibition rights, has the requisite locus standi to challenge the decertification orders, and whether the principle of audi alteram partem applies to require a hearing for the affected distributor before a final decertification order is passed by the Central Government. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioner has sufficient personal interest and locus standi since its commercial rights were adversely affected, and that the principle of natural justice requiring a fair hearing must be read into the statute. The court declared the notification decertifying the film in Sindh to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, remanding the matter for fresh decision after granting the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The key principles laid down include that locus standi in writ jurisdiction extends to any person whose interests or benefits are curtailed by unlawful executive action, and that the right to a hearing is an implied requirement in administrative adjudications affecting rights unless expressly excluded.
Questions settled- Does a film distributor holding sole distribution and exhibition rights possess the locus standi to challenge an order suspending or decertifying a film under the Censorship of Films Act, 1963?
- Is the principle of audi alteram partem to be read into the Censorship of Films Act, 1963 and the rules framed thereunder when an adverse order is passed affecting a party's commercial interests?
- Can executive orders passed without affording a right of hearing to an affected party be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect under constitutional jurisdiction?
- MESSRS DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs AKHTAR ALI1979 PLC 114 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-05-02Read full judgment →
- MESSRS CRESCENT I FILMS, MANGAL MANSION, ROYAL PARK, LAHORE vs MUMTAZ MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 3 Other1979 SCMR 107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's civil revision regarding the refusal of temporary injunctions by the trial and appellate courts. The petitioner, claiming ownership of property through adverse possession, sought an injunction in a suit for declaration following an earlier ejectment order passed against a third party (Rafiq) for rent default and unauthorized subletting. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in exercising their discretion to refuse the temporary injunction. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality in the exercise of discretion by the lower courts in denying the injunction. Furthermore, the Court clarified that observations made by the High Court regarding the competency of the suit, made during interlocutory proceedings for a temporary injunction, are merely tentative and do not prejudice the case on its merits. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Are observations made by a High Court regarding the competency of a suit in an order concerning temporary injunctions binding on the trial court?
- Does the refusal of a temporary injunction by lower courts constitute an illegal exercise of discretion when the petitioner fails to establish a prima facie case?
- Can a party claim ownership through adverse possession to obtain a temporary injunction against an ejectment order based on rent default?
- MESSRS COFCOT TEXTILES LTD., HYDERABAD vs REHMAT KHAN1979 PLC 136 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-06-08Read full judgment →
- MESSRS BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE & DISTRIBUTING COMPANY LTD., Karachis vs ABDUR RASHID AND 2 Other1979 PLD Karachi 747 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-17Read full judgment →
- MESSRS BUILDERS ASSOCIATES LTD. vs TALIB HASSAN CHAUHAN1979 PLC 100 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-08-12Read full judgment →
- MESSRS BAWANI SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs PEOPLE's TOWN COMMITTEE, TALHAR1979 PLD Karachi 458 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSRS ALPHA INSURANCE Co. LTD. vs THIRD SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI1979 PLC 405 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-28Read full judgment →
- MESSRS AL MEHRAM Builderss vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND Another1979 SCMR 585 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition challenging the recovery of arrears of land revenue by the provincial government. The core legal questions were whether the contractual amount owed by the petitioners was "ascertained" and thus recoverable as arrears of land revenue, and whether the contract was frustrated by supervening events related to the 1977 general elections. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the petitioners' liability was fixed by the agreement and that the plea of frustration was a mere pretext, as the petitioners continued toll collection despite the alleged disturbances. The Court held that the government was not required to file a suit for determination of the amount because the debt was admitted and ascertained under the contract. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot avoid contractual liability by raising a plea of frustration when they continue to perform the contract, and an admitted, ascertained contractual debt remains recoverable as arrears of land revenue without the need for a separate judicial determination.
Questions settled- Can a party claim frustration of contract while continuing to perform the obligations under that contract?
- Is an admitted and ascertained contractual debt recoverable as arrears of land revenue without a separate judicial determination?
- Does a government's decision to take over toll plazas due to a lessee's default render the outstanding contractual debt unascertained?
- MESSRS AHMAD INVESTMENTS LTD., KARACHI vs Mst. KAMANI BEGUM1979 PLC 477 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-07-07Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ADAMJEE INDUSTRIES LTD. vs MESSRS ASSOCIATED ITALIAN1979 CLC 376 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-31Read full judgment →
- MESSERSSTERLING PRODUCTS (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs DEPUTY COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND Another1979 PLD Karachi 643 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-22Read full judgment →
- MESSERS SAINRAPT & ET. BRICE, KARACHI vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME1979 PLD Karachi 591 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSERS REGAL MANUFCATURING COMPANY, LAHORE vs WORKERS' UNION1979 PLC 212 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-15Read full judgment →
- MESSERS NATIONAL MOTORS LTD., KARACHI vs M. BASHIR AHMAD1979 PLC 175 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-05-09Read full judgment →
- MESSERS INDUS JUTE MILLS LTD., THATTA vs ABDUL REHMAN1979 PLC 121 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-01-09Read full judgment →
- MEHRAJ DIN AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L) AND Other1979 SCMR 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the High Court. The primary legal question addressed by the Court was whether the petitioners had provided sufficient grounds to justify the condonation of a significant delay of 206 days in filing the petition against the High Court's main order dated 18-3-1976. While the petitioners challenged the review order dated 23-9-1979, they conceded that their real grievance lay with the main order. The Court examined the explanation offered for the delay and found it unsatisfactory. The Court held that it was implausible that the petitioners were unaware of the long-standing litigation conducted by their predecessor-in-interest, noting that due diligence would have revealed the existence of the proceedings. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision to dismiss the review petition on the grounds of limitation. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a satisfactory and credible explanation, and ignorance of ongoing litigation involving a predecessor-in-interest does not constitute a valid ground for condonation when due diligence could have uncovered the facts.
Questions settled- Does ignorance of litigation conducted by a predecessor-in-interest constitute a sufficient ground for the condonation of delay?
- Can a petition be entertained when the primary order challenged is significantly time-barred and no satisfactory explanation for the delay is provided?
- Is a review petition maintainable if the explanation for the delay in filing is found to be unsatisfactory by the court?
- MEHRAB vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 743 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-18Read full judgment →
- MEHR MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1979 SCMR 182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding the transfer of an evacuee house and shop in Rawalpindi. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had filed a CH Form claiming possession, but learned that the property had been transferred to a rival claimant. After exhausting departmental remedies, the petitioner challenged the transfer via a writ petition in the High Court, impleading the rival claimant who had already died prior to the institution of the petition. The High Court rejected the petition on merits and also noted that it was inherently defective as it was filed against a deceased person. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel conceded that the writ petition was filed against a dead person but argued the High Court should not have ruled on the merits. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, confirming that judicial or quasi-judicial orders passed against a deceased person are a nullity in law, rendering the High Court's observations on the merits of no legal consequence.
Questions settled- What is the legal effect of judicial observations on merits made in proceedings instituted against a deceased person?
- Is a writ petition filed against a sole respondent who died prior to its institution maintainable?
- Does an order passed against a person who had died long before the initiation of proceedings constitute a nullity in law?
- Mehr KHUDA DAD KHAN LAK AND 2 Other vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR,, ZONE _A_,1979 PLD Lahore 266 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-08Read full judgment →
- MEHR GUL KHAN vs The STATE1979 SCMR 278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-12-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for review arose from the Supreme Court's dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal against a death sentence confirmed by the Lahore High Court for murder. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish motive, that the court ignored inconsistencies in ocular testimony, and that the petitioner's youth (fifteen years old) at the time of the offense constituted an extenuating circumstance warranting a lesser sentence. The Supreme Court held that the motive was sufficiently established by evidence linking the petitioner to the narcotics trade and the subsequent raid. Regarding the petitioner's age, the Court found the plea inconsistent with previous statements made before the trial court and noted that review jurisdiction does not permit the re-determination of such factual questions, especially when not raised with due diligence at the leave stage. The Court affirmed that the ocular testimony had been correctly evaluated in the totality of evidence. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed, and the Court declined to consider new evidence regarding the petitioner's age presented post-judgment, directing the applicant to the Executive Government.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise new grounds in a review petition that were not argued during the hearing of the petition for leave to appeal?
- Is the determination of an accused's age, when inconsistent with previous statements, a matter that can be re-opened in review jurisdiction?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to re-evaluate factual findings regarding motive and ocular testimony in a review proceeding?
- MEHR GHULAM NABI vs MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ AND ANOTHER1979 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the Lahore High Court dismissing an application for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, who was accused in a murder case under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether bail granted on the ground of inordinate delay in trial should be cancelled, and whether subsequent events of alleged misuse of bail can invalidate a previously correct order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal to cancel bail was proper based on the circumstances existing at the time of the impugned order, and that subsequent alleged criminal acts cannot be used to reverse an order that was correct when passed. However, the Court clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to move the appropriate court for cancellation of bail based on the fresh allegations of misuse. The key principle laid down is that an order refusing or granting bail is evaluated based on the circumstances prevailing at the time of its making, and subsequent conduct must be raised through fresh proceedings for bail cancellation before the appropriate forum.
Questions settled- Whether bail granted on the ground of inordinate delay in trial can be cancelled based on subsequent events occurring after the bail order?
- Can an appellate court set aside a bail cancellation order on the basis of facts that transpired after the said order was passed?
- What is the appropriate remedy when an accused misuses the concession of bail by committing a subsequent offence?
- MEHR DIN AND Another vs THE STATE1979 PLD Lahore 505 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-05Read full judgment →
- MEHMOOD SHAH AND 8 Others vs USMAN SHAH AND ANOTHERs1979 P Cr. L J 924 · Sindh High Court · 1979-07-29Read full judgment →