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.
- GRINDLAY's BANK LTD., KARACHI vs Rat ABDUR RAZZAQUB KHAN AND 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 192 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-20Read full judgment →
- GUL AFZAL KHAN vs MUHAMMAD HANIF ARIF1979 PLD Lahore 398 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from an eviction order granted under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant from premises used as a News Agency, claiming personal residential need. The core legal questions concerned whether Section 11 of the Ordinance restricts an owner from letting out residential premises for commercial use, and whether a landlord can evict a tenant from a non-residential building for personal residential purposes. The Court held that the eviction order was unsustainable. It established that Section 11 of the Ordinance regulates the landlord-tenant relationship and does not restrict an owner's right to convert property before it is let out. Furthermore, for determining the character of a building, only the rented portion is considered, not the entire structure. Crucially, the Court held that a landlord cannot evict a tenant from a non-residential building for residential purposes under Section 13(3) of the Ordinance, as the statutory grounds for eviction are specific to the nature of the premises.
Questions settled- Does Section 11 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 prohibit a landlord from letting out residential premises for commercial use?
- For determining whether a building is residential or non-residential, should the entire structure or only the rented portion be considered?
- Can a landlord evict a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground that the landlord requires the premises for personal residential use?
- GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, ISLAMABAD vs REHMAT DIN1979 PLC 314 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-08-09Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, IRRIGATION &1979 PLC 386 · Labour Court · 1979-07-27Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF SIND PROVINCE OF SIND vs Mst. HASINA AFTAB ALI AND 21979 SCMR 17 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB vs MESSRS COLONY THAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD.1979 CLC 522 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-24Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, KARACHI AND 31979 PLC 422 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-18Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN vs MESSRS MORIS JACOB & Co.1979 CLC 32 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-07Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN vs MESSRS INDO PAKISTAN CORPORATION LTD. Etc_1979 PLD Supreme Court 723 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the Lahore High Court's judgment declaring that the first respondent company was not an enemy firm under the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971. The core legal questions involved whether deceased shareholders who were Indian nationals continued to be members of the company for the purpose of enemy property determination despite their deaths, and whether the company's articles of association validly created a legal fiction deeming them to remain holders of shares until transfer. The Supreme Court held that under the company's articles and established company law principles, a deceased shareholder's estate remains a member and the deceased is deemed to remain the holder of shares until transmission or transfer is completed, rendering the company an enemy firm due to shares held by enemy subjects. The Court laid down the principle that the legal fiction contained in company articles regarding deceased members remaining holders of shares is valid and operative for determining enemy firm status under emergency legislation.
Questions settled- Does the death of a shareholder automatically terminate membership in a company for the purpose of determining if it is an enemy firm?
- Are the legal heirs of a deceased shareholder considered members of a company prior to complying with procedural requirements for registering the transfer of shares under the articles of association?
- Whether the legal fiction in a company's articles providing that a deceased member remains the holder of shares until registration of a transfer is valid?
- Does the failure to afford a hearing prior to issuing an enemy property notification vitiate the proceedings if a full hearing is subsequently provided before a Special Tribunal?
- GOVERNMENT OF N.-W. F. P. THROUGH COLLECTOR, MARDAN vs SULTANUD DIN1979 PLD Peshawar 43 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-12-29Read full judgment →
- GOPAL vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 590 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
- GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) LTD., WEST WHARF, KARACHI vs Raja ASHIQ1979 PLC 161 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-10-03Read full judgment →
- GLAXO LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI vs SECOND SIND LABOUR1979 PLD Karachi 500 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM SIDDIQUE vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SADDAR, DERA GHAZI KHAN1979 PLD Lahore 263 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the legality of registering a second First Information Report (F.I.R.) regarding the same criminal occurrence. The core legal question addressed by the Court is whether the police are justified in registering a subsequent F.I.R. when information regarding the same incident is provided by a different informant after the initial F.I.R. has been recorded. The Court held that the primary purpose of an F.I.R. is to inform the police of the commission of a cognizable offence for investigation. Once an F.I.R. is registered, any subsequent information provided regarding the same occurrence does not constitute a new F.I.R. but must be treated as a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that the police officer receiving information may question the informant to verify sources but cannot register a second F.I.R. for the same incident. Consequently, the Court recalled the previous order directing the registration of a second F.I.R. and dismissed the writ petition, establishing that multiple F.I.R.s for a single occurrence are legally impermissible.
Questions settled- Is it legally permissible to register a second First Information Report for the same criminal occurrence?
- How should subsequent information regarding an already reported cognizable offence be treated by the police?
- Does a police officer have the discretion to record information in a station diary instead of registering a formal First Information Report?
- GHULAM SIDDIQUE vs PREMIER TOBACCO INDUSTRIES LTD.1979 PLC 227 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-03-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SHABBIR vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 511 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR vs PUNJAB PROVINCE Etc.S1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 6 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1976-10-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR AND Another vs The STATE1979 SCMR 43 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought a review of the Supreme Court's order dismissing their criminal petition for special leave to appeal, contending that the majority opinion failed to properly evaluate the quality of corroborative evidence and that the injuries sustained by the victims did not support the firing of more than three shots. The core legal question was whether the appraisal of evidence regarding corroboration can be undertaken within the narrow scope of review jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the assessment of corroboration is inextricably linked with the appraisal of evidence, which falls outside the permissible realm of review jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that attempting to reopen findings of fact affirmed by both the trial court and the High Court is impermissible in review, and consequently dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the quality of corroboration and appraisal of evidence can be examined in review jurisdiction?
- Can a petition for review be used as an appeal to re-examine factual findings and evidence?
- GHULAM SAKHI vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SADI vs ZAINAB BIBI1979 PLD Lahore 366 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-23Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL GHULAM QADIR vs THE STATE THE STATE (A) Penal Code (XLV1979 SCMR 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL AND 3 Others vs The STATE1979 SCMR 177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing bail to the petitioners in a case involving murder and rioting. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail under the category of further inquiry because a number of co-accused mentioned in the first information report were found innocent by the police during investigation. The Supreme Court held that where the petitioners are specifically named in the first information report with active roles and specific weapons attributed to them, their case does not fall within the ambit of further inquiry merely due to exoneration of certain co-accused by the police. The court established that police findings of innocence regarding some accused do not automatically render the case of specifically implicated co-accused one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the refusal of bail by the High Court without arbitrariness or perversity warrants no interference.
Questions settled- Does the exoneration of some co-accused by the police during investigation automatically make the case of remaining accused one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Are accused persons specifically named in the first information report with assigned roles and weapons entitled to bail when the police find certain other co-accused innocent?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the High Court refusing bail in a criminal matter?
- GHULAM RASOOL vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 493 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs DIRECTOR, IRRIGATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LAHORE1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 120 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-08-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL KHAN vs THE STATE1979 PLD Peshawar 227 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-09-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU &1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 78 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-11-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR AND Another vs REHMAT ULLAH1979 PLD Lahore 382 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an ejectment order concurrently passed by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge against the appellants from a shop (or house) on the ground of personal need under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal questions were whether a landlord must explicitly utter the words "in good faith" in his deposition to satisfy the statutory requirement of personal need, and whether failure to examine the son for whose marriage the premises were required is fatal to the ejectment application. The Lahore High Court held that specific utterance of the magic words "in good faith" is unnecessary if the evidence demonstrates an honest and actual need, and that failure to produce the son as a witness is not fatal where the father has substantiated his claim as head of the household. The Court laid down the principle that the requirement of "good faith" is a matter of inference from the facts and circumstances established in evidence rather than the mechanical repetition of statutory terminology.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord is required to specifically utter the words 'in good faith' in his deposition to satisfy the requirements of personal need under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does the failure of a landlord to examine his son as a witness in support of a personal need plea based on the son's marriage render the ejectment application fatal?
- How is the expression 'in good faith' to be interpreted in the context of rent restriction laws?
- GHULAM QADIR AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 9 OTHERS1979 CLC 527 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-11Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR Alias Khairai vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 113 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-10-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs The STATE1979 SCMR 24 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court refusing him post-arrest bail in a case involving offences under sections 148, 302, and 307 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The incident resulted in one death and injuries to multiple persons on both sides. The High Court had earlier granted bail to two co-accused on the ground that the complainant side's aggression and lack of explanation for numerous injuries on the accused side warranted further inquiry, but denied bail to the petitioner because he was attributed two hatchet blows falling under section 307. A subsequent bail petition on the additional grounds of old age and illness was also dismissed. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and examined the circumstances, noting the unexplained injuries on the accused side and the prolonged incarceration exceeding two years. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail and accordingly accepted the appeal, laying down the principle that unexplained injuries on the accused party coupled with the statutory considerations regarding prolonged detention and medical condition justify the grant of post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when multiple injuries sustained by the accused party remain unexplained in the first information report?
- Does prolonged incarceration without a likelihood of an early trial constitute a sufficient ground for the grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether age and ailments such as cataract and rheumatic pains warrant the concession of bail under the statutory provisions?
- GHULAM NABI vs THE STATE AND 5 Other1979 PLD Karachi 183 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI ETC vs BASHIR AHMAD Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 33 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-23Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs ULFAT HUSSAIN QURESHI, ASSISTANT CONTROLLER1979 PLC 446 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUJTABA KHAN vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN AND ANOTHER1979 PLC (C. S. T) 1 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1978-09-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs GENERAL TYRE & RUBBER Co. OF PAKISTAN, LTD.1979 PLC 473 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-07-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND Another vs AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER1979 SCMR 180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE--1979 P Cr. L J 859 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 3 Other vs THE SATE1979 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for confirmation of bail in a case involving allegations of attempted land occupation and injury. The core legal question was whether a Deputy Commissioner’s order directing an inquiry into a private complaint, filed while a police investigation was already pending, constituted "taking cognizance" under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. The Court held that such an order does not constitute cognizance. It ruled that the private complaint was merely a miscellaneous application and could not independently trigger the Ordinance’s provisions while a police investigation was ongoing. The Court established that "taking cognizance" requires a conscious application of the judicial mind to facts with the intent to initiate proceedings. It further laid down the principle that the Ordinance’s jurisdiction is only triggered upon formal cognizance, typically following the submission of a police challan or equivalent material. Consequently, the Court confirmed the bail, rejecting the argument that the Deputy Commissioner’s order had ousted its jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does a private complaint filed during a pending police investigation constitute 'taking cognizance' under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968?
- At what stage does the jurisdiction of ordinary courts cease in cases triable under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968?
- Can a Deputy Commissioner use a private complaint to oust the jurisdiction of ordinary courts while a police investigation is already underway?
- What constitutes 'taking cognizance' of an offence under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968?
- GHULAM MOHYUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 766 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Execution Second Appeal was referred to a larger Bench of the Lahore High Court to resolve a conflict of authority on whether payment of the purchase money out of court in a pre-emption case complies with Order XX Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondent, a rival pre-emptor, claimed to have paid the vendee out of court before the due date, which was subsequently certified by the executing court. The appellant, the alternative pre-emptor, argued that such out-of-court payment was invalid and did not satisfy the mandatory statutory requirements. The High Court analyzed the statutory framework, comparing pre-emption decrees with ordinary money decrees under Order XXI Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that Order XX Rule 14 is a mandatory provision with strict penal consequences, designed to prevent collusion and fraud. Consequently, payment out of court, even if certified, does not constitute lawful compliance. The Court approved the rule in Painda Khan v. Tiwana (PLD 1962 Lah. 92), overruled Noor Ahmad v. Muhammad Ramzan (PLD 1973 B J 42), allowed the appeal, and directed execution in favor of the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether payment of purchase money out of court can be considered as valid compliance with the provisions of Order XX Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does Order XXI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the payment of purchase money under a pre-emption decree?
- Can the rule of substantial compliance be invoked to condone non-compliance with a mandatory statutory provision that carries explicit penal consequences?
- GHULAM JILANI vs The STATE1979 SCMR 229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the wife of a death-row convict. The core legal question was whether the rejection of the convict's mercy petition by the President of Pakistan was invalid due to the absence of a Prime Minister on whose advice it should have been processed. The Supreme Court held that the President's power of mercy under Article 45 of the Constitution is validly exercisable by the President, repelling the contention that the absence of a Prime Minister vitiated the order, following the precedent in Begum Nusrat Bhutto's case. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the rejection of a mercy petition by the President of Pakistan is invalid in the absence of a Prime Minister?
- Does the President possess the power of mercy under Article 45 of the Constitution independently?
- GHULAM HYDER vs MUHAMMAD HANEEF AND Other1979 PLD Karachi 167 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arose out of two connected appeals (a Second Appeal by the landlord and a Letters Patent Appeal by an inducted tenant) challenging concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and Additional District Judge directing the restoration of possession of a newly constructed shop to the legal heirs of an evicted tenant under Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal issues pertained to the territorial jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, the locus standi of legal heirs of a deceased statutory tenant, the prospective application of Section 13(5-B), the scope of the phrase 'party aggrieved' under Section 15, natural justice regarding third-party occupants, and the interpretation of the phrase 'before the completion of the new building and its occupation by another person'. The High Court held that the legal heirs are entitled to pursue reinstatement, the word 'and' in Section 13(5-B) is conjunctive (requiring both completion and occupation to bar an application), and 'party aggrieved' under Section 15 includes any person adversely affected. The court upheld the eviction/restitution orders, modifying only the determined monthly rent.
Questions settled- Can legal heirs of a deceased evicted statutory tenant maintain or continue an application for reinstatement under Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Is the phrase 'before the completion of the new building and its occupation by another person' in Section 13(5-B) conjunctive, such that completion alone without occupation does not bar a tenant's application for restitution?
- Does the expression 'party aggrieved' under Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 include a third-party occupant who was not formally impleaded in the original proceedings before the Rent Controller?
- Is an order of the Rent Controller vitiated for breach of natural justice where an inducted tenant was not given prior notice but actively testified as a witness, had full knowledge, and subsequently had a full hearing on appeal?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THS STATE1979 P Cr. L J 72 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 775 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER vs THE STATE1979 PLD Lahore 757 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER vs NOOR MUHAMMAD1979 CLC 414 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER vs MUHAMMAD HANIF AND Other1979 SCMR 396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a leave petition challenging a High Court judgment concerning a tenant's right to re-entry following the reconstruction of a building. The core legal question was whether the requirements of Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, were satisfied, specifically regarding the timing of the tenant's application for possession of the newly constructed premises. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were correct in law. The Court affirmed that the tenant had timely approached the landlord for possession before the completion and occupation of the new building, thereby fulfilling the statutory conditions. Furthermore, the Court rejected the landlord's contention that the resulting partition of the shop rendered the remaining area commercially unviable, characterizing this as a moral rather than a legal argument. The key principle laid down is that a tenant’s right to re-entry under the Ordinance is contingent upon applying before the new building’s completion and occupation, and the Rent Controller is empowered to determine just allocation based on the tenant's needs and the new building's type.
Questions settled- Does a tenant have a right to be put into possession of a new shop constructed on the site of the old premises under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- What are the conditions precedent for a tenant to apply for possession of a new building under Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Is a landlord's claim regarding the commercial unsuitability of the remaining area after partition a valid legal ground to deny a tenant's right to possession under Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- GHULAM HAIDER vs GHULAM RAZA SHAH AND 12 Owns1979 PLD Lahore 481 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a suit for a permanent injunction filed by the appellant-plaintiff seeking to restrain the respondents-defendants from interfering with his possession over 614 kanals of land in Village Daggar Yar Shah. The trial court and the District Judge concurrently dismissed the suit. The appellant claimed adna malkiyat and subsequent ownership of the land through the abolition of ala malkiyat under paragraph 22 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64, or alternatively through adverse possession exceeding 12 years. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was merely a non-occupancy tenant and could not acquire ownership rights by breaking waste land or through adverse possession while holding permissive possession. The court further held that upon the abolition of ala malkiyat under Martial Law Regulation No. 64, where no distinct adna malik existed, the ala maliks (superior proprietors) became full, exclusive proprietors of the land rather than the land becoming resumable by the Government.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant in permissive possession can claim ownership of land through adverse possession?
- What is the legal effect of the abolition of ala malkiyat under paragraph 22 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 on the proprietary rights of superior and inferior proprietors?
- Does the abolition of ala malkiyat render unappropriated waste land resumable by the Government?
- Can a person acquire adna malkiyat rights by reclaiming barani or shamilat land contrary to the village wajibularz?
- GHULAM HABIB vs MESSERS GAMMON (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI1979 PLC 475 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-07-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID AND Another vs Mian FAROOQ NAZIR AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 673 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition arises from an order passed by the Rent Controller Lahore on a preliminary issue in an ejectment case under the W. P. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal question was whether land rented out for the purpose of setting up a re-rolling mill (a factory) falls within the definition of 'rented land' under the Ordinance of 1959, thereby giving the Rent Controller jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that the setting up of a manufacturing plant or factory constitutes trade or business, as its object is the conversion of commodities into finished goods for sale, and thus falls within the definition of 'rented land'. Furthermore, the court held that for a factory to be excluded from the operation of the Ordinance, the factory itself, equipped with machinery, must be let out as such rather than bare land leased for the purpose of a factory. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether land rented out for the purpose of setting up a factory or manufacturing plant falls within the definition of 'rented land' under the W. P. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does the expression 'business or trade' encompass manufacturing processes and the establishment of a factory?
- Under what circumstances is a factory considered ousted from the ambit of the W. P. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- GHULAM BAHAUDDIN QURESHI vs Mits. HAWA BAI1979 PLD Karachi 597 · Sindh High CourtRead 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 in this specific case.
- GHULAM ALI AND Another vs LAL KHAN AND 2 Other Rcspondents1979 PLD Lahore 409 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-05Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI AND 4 OTHERS vs ALLAH BAKHSH AND 2 OTHERS1979 CLC 398 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1979 P Cr. L J 987 · Sindh High Court · 1959-04-13Read full judgment →
- GHAUS MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND Another1979 SCMR 130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that dismissed his petition for quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against him under sections 468 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The allegations involved fraud and forgery in mutation proceedings regarding inheritance, where the petitioner allegedly identified a woman falsely posing as the complainant's mother to deprive the complainant of her inheritance. The petitioner contended that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under section 468, arguing that the alleged offence occurred before a Revenue Court, thereby necessitating a complaint by the Presiding Officer under section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that a Revenue Officer conducting mutation proceedings does not function as a Revenue Court. Consequently, the provisions of section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were not attracted. The Court affirmed that the Magistrate could take cognizance based on the police report, and dismissed the petition, establishing that mutation proceedings do not constitute judicial proceedings before a Court for the purposes of section 195(1)(c).
Questions settled- Does a Revenue Officer conducting mutation proceedings function as a Revenue Court?
- Is a complaint by a Presiding Officer required under section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for offences committed during mutation proceedings?
- Can a Magistrate take cognizance of an offence under section 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without a complaint from the Revenue Officer where the document was produced?
- GHAUS MUHAMMAD Alias GHAUSA AND Another vs The STATE1979 SCMR 579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the testimony of a partisan eye-witness, in the absence of other credible evidence, was sufficient to sustain a conviction in a case involving a blood feud. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to provide reliable, independent corroboration. The Court observed that one eye-witness was unreliable, and the other, while likely present, was a partisan witness whose testimony required independent corroboration to implicate the accused. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the appellants' abscondence could not serve as corroborative evidence because it was equally attributable to a prior pending criminal case. Additionally, the Court held that the FIR, lodged by a deceased person, could not corroborate the testimony of other witnesses. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that in cases involving blood feuds, partisan testimony must be subjected to strict scrutiny and requires independent corroboration to secure a conviction.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of a partisan witness be relied upon for conviction without independent corroboration?
- Does the abscondence of an accused constitute corroborative evidence if it is equally attributable to a separate pending criminal case?
- Can an FIR lodged by a deceased person be used to corroborate the testimony of other prosecution witnesses?
- Does the existence of a motive provide sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction based on partisan testimony?
- GHAFOOR vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 803 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-10Read full judgment →
- G. M. D. GHAURI vs Ch. ZAHEER UD DIN AND Anoters1979 SCMR 381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for review filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had previously dismissed a Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal challenging the grant of pre-arrest bail to the respondent by the Lahore High Court. The respondent faced charges under sections 420, 468, 472, 419, and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the respondent was ineligible for bail due to the nature of the offence under section 472, which carries a potential sentence of ten years imprisonment, arguing that the grant of bail violated the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that under Order XXVI, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 1956, a review petition in criminal proceedings is maintainable only upon demonstrating an error apparent on the face of the record. Finding no such error and noting that the court had previously considered the nature of the alleged offences when denying leave to appeal, the Court dismissed the review petition as meritless.
Questions settled- Under what grounds is a review petition maintainable in criminal cases before the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- Does the mere severity of an offence, such as one punishable by ten years imprisonment, automatically preclude the grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- FRANCISCO XAVIER PINTO vs JULIE PINTO AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Karachi 716 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-01Read full judgment →
- FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD. vs SECOND SIND LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS1979 PLC 316 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-24Read full judgment →
- FAZAL RAHIM AND 6 Other vs COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR DIVISION AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Peshawar 91 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the decision of the Commissioner, Peshawar, to repurpose land originally acquired for a timber market for the construction of a housing colony. The petitioners contended that the acquiring department lacked the authority to change the land's purpose without issuing a fresh notification under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The core legal question was whether the government is legally required to issue a new notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 when the public purpose for which the land was acquired changes after the initial acquisition process has commenced. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that a fresh notification is not a legal necessity when the purpose of acquisition changes. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court affirmed that the Land Acquisition Act 1894 does not mandate identity in the specific scheme or purpose for which the public object is carried out. The key principle laid down is that once land is validly acquired for a public purpose, the government may alter the specific utilization of that land without being required to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings or issue a new notification.
Questions settled- Is a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 required if the government changes the intended public purpose of the acquired land?
- Does the Land Acquisition Act 1894 require identity in the specific scheme for which land is acquired?
- Can the government utilize land acquired for one public purpose for a different public purpose without re-notifying the acquisition?
- FAZALDAD AND 7 OTHERS vs Mst. ZAINAB BIBI AND 49 OTHERS1979 CLC 408 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-03Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD vs KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING WORKS1979 PLC 324 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 286 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-31Read full judgment →
- FAZAL KHITAB vs Mst. NAHEED AKHTAR AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Supreme Court 864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding a decree for the dissolution of a Muslim marriage. The petitioner-husband challenged the decree on two primary grounds: first, the applicability of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 to the region where the marriage was solemnized; and second, the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court in Mansehra, where the wife resided, rather than the place where the marriage occurred. The Supreme Court held that regardless of the strict applicability of the 1939 Act, Islamic Law governs the marriage, and courts, acting as Qazis, possess the authority to dissolve marriages on grounds such as habitual cruelty and non-maintenance. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a wife may institute a suit for dissolution of marriage in the district of her residence if she was unjustifiably deserted, as the failure to maintain her constitutes a cause of action arising at her place of residence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the lower court's findings of fact regarding the husband's cruelty and desertion.
Questions settled- Does the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 apply to marriages solemnized in regions where the Act's strict applicability is contested?
- Can a wife institute a suit for dissolution of marriage in the district of her residence if she was unjustifiably deserted by her husband elsewhere?
- Are courts in Pakistan competent to effect a divorce on grounds valid under Islamic Law even if the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 is not strictly applicable?
- FAZAL KARIM Alias BIBO vs MUHAMMAD MURSALEEN AND ANOTHER1979 P Cr. L J 921 · Sindh High Court · 1979-07-29Read full judgment →
- FAZAL HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 238 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-15Read full judgment →
- FAZAL HUSSAIN AND 3 Others vs Mst. BEGUM BIBI AND Another1979 SCMR 414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Mst. Begum Bibi filed a civil suit against the petitioners seeking the recovery of specific movable items, including ornaments, household goods, and furniture, or alternatively, the recovery of Rs. 14,630 as their monetary value. The petitioners contested the claim in their written statements. Following a trial, the trial court decreed the suit in the sum of Rs. 14,500. Upon appeal, the Additional District Judge, Gujrat, upheld the decree but modified the decretal amount, reducing it by Rs. 2,000. The petitioners subsequently filed a Second Appeal in the High Court, which was dismissed in limine. The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court reviewed the proceedings and found no merit in the petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the lower courts' concurrent findings regarding the recovery of the decretal amount.
Questions settled- Can a second appeal be dismissed in limine if the trial and appellate courts have concurrently found in favor of the plaintiff?
- Is a decree for the recovery of movables or their alternative price legally sustainable if the defendant denies the claim in their written statement?
- FAZAL ELAHI vs KHURSHID KHAN AND ANOTHER1979 PLC 362 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-05Read full judgment →
- FAZAL ELAHI AND 2 Others vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs'1979 P Cr. L J 993 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-17Read full judgment →
- FAZAL D1N vs SAR DAR SHAH AND 2 OTHERS1979 CLC 40 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-17Read full judgment →
- FAUJI SUGAR MILLS, HYDERABAD vs EMPLOYEES' UNION AND ANOTHER1979 PLC 170 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-06-13Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs TOWN, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS-1979 P Cr. L J 123 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-10Read full judgment →
- FATEH KHAN vs SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL, MIANWALI AND Another1979 SCMR 327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a death row convict, sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of his writ petition. The petitioner argued that, based on specific 1943 government instructions, his execution should not be carried out due to the significant lapse of time since his arrest and his prolonged confinement in the condemned cell. The High Court had dismissed the petition on the grounds that this argument could have been raised in previous litigation and that the petitioner was attempting to litigate his case piecemeal. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, holding that the petitioner failed to exercise reasonable diligence in raising the point earlier. Crucially, the Court ruled that the administrative instructions relied upon were merely directory guidelines for the executive branch regarding mercy petitions and did not create enforceable legal rights that could be adjudicated through the High Court’s constitutional writ jurisdiction. While dismissing the petition, the Court noted that it remained within the discretion of the executive authorities to consider the delay in execution when exercising their powers.
Questions settled- Can administrative instructions intended as guidelines for the executive branch be enforced through the High Court's constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Is a petitioner entitled to raise new grounds in a subsequent writ petition that could have been raised with reasonable diligence in earlier proceedings?
- Do administrative guidelines regarding the timing of executions create enforceable legal rights for a death row convict?
- FATEH DIN vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 391 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-04Read full judgment →
- FARZAND ALI vs Ch. MUHAMMAD ARIF Alias SAIFUL MALOOK1979 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had previously refused to grant special leave to appeal in a civil suit regarding the ownership of a house. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the property from the respondent through an attorney, Muhammad Ashraf, and sought a declaration of title. The trial court, the district court, and the Lahore High Court all concurrently held that the petitioner failed to prove that Muhammad Ashraf was a duly appointed attorney of the respondent. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had established the validity of the sale transaction through the alleged attorney. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the petition, held that the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts were consistent and that the previous order refusing leave to appeal was not vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed as no sufficient grounds were established to warrant a review of the prior order.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be entertained when the prior order is not vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts in a review proceeding?
- FAROOQ AND Another vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 1074 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-21Read full judgment →
- FAROOQ AHMED vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLIES CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1979 P LC 217 · Labour Court · 1978-03-25Read full judgment →
- FARID vs ALLAH WASAYA1979 PLD Quetta 156 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges the competency of a Sessions Court to take direct cognizance of a case exclusively triable by it upon a direct complaint. The core legal question is whether a Court of Session possesses original jurisdiction to entertain such complaints directly or if it is restricted to cases committed to it by a Magistrate. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that a Court of Session is not a court of original jurisdiction and cannot take direct cognizance of a case. The ratio decidendi establishes that for cases exclusively triable by a Sessions Court, a complaint must first be filed before a Magistrate for the purpose of taking cognizance under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Only after the Magistrate takes cognizance and subsequently sends the case to the Sessions Court can the latter become seized of the matter. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings initiated by the Sessions Judge, Sibi, and directed the complainant to file the complaint before a Magistrate of competent territorial jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is a Court of Session competent to take direct cognizance of a case exclusively triable by it on a direct complaint?
- Does a Court of Session possess original jurisdiction to entertain criminal complaints?
- What is the correct procedure for a complainant to initiate a case exclusively triable by a Court of Session?
- FARHATULLAH KHAN vs MUSTAFA ALI KHAN1979 PLD Lahore 132 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves six Second Appeals arising from orders passed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question before the larger Bench was whether an order of a Rent Controller refusing to set aside an ex parte order of ejectment is appealable under Section 15 of the Ordinance. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court's reasoning in Mian Manzar Bashir v. M. A. Asghar & Co., held that such an order is indeed appealable. The Court established a clear distinction: an order refusing to set aside an ex parte ejectment order is definitive, effectively concluding the controversy and thus functioning as an order under Section 13 of the Ordinance. Conversely, an order setting aside an ex parte order is merely interlocutory and not appealable. Consequently, the Court overruled previous conflicting Lahore High Court decisions that had deemed such refusals non-appealable, affirming that the right to appeal exists when a Rent Controller declines to vacate an ex parte ejectment order.
Questions settled- Is an order of a Rent Controller refusing to set aside an ex parte order of ejectment appealable under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does an order of a Rent Controller setting aside an ex parte order of ejectment constitute an appealable order?
- Is an order refusing to set aside an ex parte ejectment order considered a definitive order under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- FARHAT SHAMSA vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD1979 PLD Lahore 50 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-09Read full judgment →
- FARDAUS KAUSAR vs SUBAH SADIQ1979 CLC 208 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-12Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD AND 6 OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT AND 2 omits1979 CLC 508 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-18Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD AND 5 Other vs Sheikh NASIM AHMAD1979 PLD Lahore 356 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises out of a suit for the specific performance of an agreement of sale concerning property in Sahiwal. The core legal questions involved whether the property was validly covered under the power of attorney, whether a subsequent agreement extending time was vitiated by fraud or lack of particulars, and whether time was of the essence of the contract. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants could not raise new pleas or allegations of fraud and misrepresentation without pleading necessary particulars under the Code of Civil Procedure, that concurrent findings of fact regarding the extension of time through a subsequent agreement were unexceptionable in second appeal, and that a party cannot benefit from its own failure to perform. The key principles laid down include the strict requirement for pleading particulars of fraud or misrepresentation in pleadings under Order VI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the rule that a party cannot raise a new plea of fact for the first time in second appeal.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a plea of fraud and misrepresentation in a suit or defense without setting out the necessary particulars in the pleadings?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the execution and extension of an agreement of sale can be disturbed in second appeal?
- Does the non-framing of a specific sub-issue vitiate trial proceedings where the parties were fully aware of the controversy and led evidence on it?
- Can a vendor avoid the specific performance of a contract by setting up a delay that was caused by their own failure to fulfill obligations?
- FAQIR MOHAMMAD vs AKBAR ETC.S1979 SCMR 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court which suspended the life imprisonment sentences of the respondents and granted them bail. The High Court had suspended the sentences primarily because the respondents' plea of self-defence required further examination, given a significant number of unexplained injuries sustained by the accused side. The petitioner contended that the plea of self-defence was untenable as blood-stained earth was recovered from the deceased's land, proving the respondents were the aggressors, and that the trial court's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was well-reasoned. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to conduct a detailed examination of the merits at this stage, holding that the High Court had not exercised its discretion improperly under the circumstances. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the existence of unexplained injuries on the person of the accused can justify the suspension of a sentence of life imprisonment pending appeal?
- Can a plea of self-defence be considered a sufficient ground for the grant of bail and suspension of sentence by the High Court?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary exercise of power by the High Court in suspending a sentence unless it is shown to be exercised improperly?
- FAQIR MOHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS KARACHI STEAM NAVIGATION1979 PLC 264 · Commissioner For Workmen's Compensation · 1977-04-17Read full judgment →
- FALAK SHER AND Another vs The STATE1979 SCMR 103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the cancellation of the petitioners' bail by the High Court in a murder case registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Sessions Judge's order granting bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground of further inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with a discretionary bail order based on further inquiry without finding the lower court's order to be arbitrary, perverse, or fanciful, especially where eyewitnesses made statements under Section 164 disclaiming knowledge of the occurrence and the first informant had died. The ratio established is that an appellate or revisional court should not interfere with a well-reasoned bail order founded on the need for further inquiry unless it is shown to be perverse or unsupported by the record.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in its revisional jurisdiction with a discretionary bail order passed by a Sessions Court under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure without holding it to be arbitrary or perverse?
- Does an F.I.R. constitute substantive piece of evidence when its maker has died and is unavailable for cross-examination?
- Is bail properly granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when prosecution witnesses resile through statements under Section 164?
- FAKHRO AND Another vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND). HYDERABAD1979 PLD Karachi 486 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- FAJJAR ALI vs THE PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION1979 PLC 33 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-07-31Read full judgment →
- FAIZ RASOOL vs The STATE1979 SCMR 67 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's pre-trial bail application in a double murder case registered under sections 302/149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the ground of delay in the commencement of his trial, citing previous judgments of the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether delay in the trial constitutes a sufficient ground for the grant of bail in heinous offenses, and whether the Supreme Court has applied conflicting standards on this matter. The Supreme Court held that while ordinary delay is not a ground for bail, unconscionable and inordinate delay amounting to an abuse of the process of the court may justify granting bail. The ratio is that the facts of each case determine whether the delay is unconscionable; where custody has lasted since May 1976 and the trial is expected to commence within a year, the delay is not unconscionable, and the High Court's refusal of bail was proper. The key principle laid down is that uniform standards apply to bail on grounds of delay, warranting relief only in cases of abuse of process caused by inordinate delay.
Questions settled- Is an accused person entitled to bail solely on the ground of delay in the commencement of a trial?
- What constitutes unconscionable delay amounting to an abuse of the process of the court for the purpose of granting bail?
- Whether the Supreme Court has expressed conflicting views on the question of bail based on trial delay?
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1979 PLD Karachi 513 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-13Read 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. No legal analysis can be performed without the text of the judgment.
- FAISALABAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY vs DIRECTOR, TRADE1979 CLC 267 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-11Read full judgment →
- EVACUEE PROPERTY TRUST BOARD vs MUSAWAR ALI AND ANOTHER1979 SCMR 380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Evacuee Property Trust Board sought leave to appeal against a High Court order that had dismissed its challenge to the transfer of property to private individuals. The property in question had been transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and the Board claimed it was Trust property. The District Judge had previously determined the property was not Trust property, a finding upheld by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petition was found to be barred by 33 days. The petitioner sought condonation of delay, citing procedural difficulties and the time required for government legal consultation. The Court rejected these grounds as irrelevant. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to comply with a previous court order requiring the amended application for condonation to be filed within one month, filing it four days late without explanation. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as time-barred, emphasizing that procedural delays by government entities do not constitute valid grounds for condonation of limitation without satisfactory explanation.
Questions settled- Are procedural difficulties and the time required for government legal consultation sufficient grounds for the condonation of delay in filing a petition?
- Does the failure to comply with a court-ordered deadline for filing an amended application for condonation of delay warrant the dismissal of a petition?
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs VOLKART (PAKISTAN), LTD., KARACHI1979 P LC 145 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-01-11Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs MANAGEMENT, PAK-AMERICAN FERTILIZERS LTD., MIANWALI1979 PLC 40 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-07-29Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION (REGD.) vs MEESRS GOLDEN INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI1979 PLC 465 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-07-28Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION (RECD.) vs MANAGEMENT, UNITED CHRISTIAN HOSPITAL1979 PLC 337 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-07-15Read full judgment →
- ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURING Co. LTD., SHEIKHUPURA vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1979 PLC 416 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged a government notification imposing a special tax under Section 70 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, arguing that statutory consultation with the Social Security Institution was not held. The Commissioner of the Social Security Institution had initiated the proposal and submitted a draft notification directly to the Government, which issued it without further consulting the Governing Body of the Institution. The Lahore High Court examined whether the Commissioner could act as a substitute for the Governing Body/Institution and what constitutes valid 'consultation' under the law.
The Court held that the Governing Body represents the Institution as a body corporate, whereas the Commissioner is merely its executive officer and cannot substitute for the Governing Body without express statutory delegation or regulation. The Court further observed that consultation requires an impact of minds where the consulting authority presents a proposal to the consulted body for its advice or suggestions. Because no consultation occurred with the Governing Body and Section 70 did not apply to the case, the impugned notification was declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Does a proposal initiated by a Chief Executive officer satisfy a statutory requirement of consultation with the corporate body itself?
- Can the Commissioner of the Social Security Institution act as a substitute for the Governing Body without express delegation or regulation?
- What constitutes valid legal consultation when a statute requires the Government to consult a body before levying a tax?
- EJAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE And 2 Other1979 SCMR 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a leave to appeal petition directed against an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's application for the transfer of a murder trial. The petitioner, who lodged an F.I.R. regarding the murder of his brother, sought the transfer of the case and a stay of proceedings before the Additional Sessions Judge, Attock, alleging that a prosecution witness's testimony during cross-examination was inaccurately recorded by the trial judge. The High Court dismissed the transfer application, holding that the grievance regarding the recording of evidence could be addressed or clarified at the conclusion of the trial. The Supreme Court found the High Court's view proper and reasonable, noting that it was open to the petitioner to move the trial court for clarification or re-examination of the witness after the conclusion of the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the impugned order warranted no interference and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a criminal case should be transferred from the trial court merely on the apprehension that a witness's statement was inaccurately recorded during cross-examination?
- Can a grievance regarding the recording of a witness's testimony be addressed at the conclusion of the evidence before the trial court?
- EHSANUL HAQUE vs SERVICE TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD, ETC.S1979 SCMR 627 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Upper Division Clerk, challenged the dismissal of his service appeal by the Service Tribunal. The petitioner had been removed from service in 1970 but failed to file a departmental appeal against that order, opting instead to file a civil suit which was dismissed in 1973. Subsequently, he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, which was dismissed as time-barred under Section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, with the Tribunal erroneously assuming the suit abated after the Act's commencement. The Supreme Court found the Tribunal's reliance on Section 6 regarding abatement factually incorrect, as the suit had been dismissed prior to the Act's enforcement. However, the Court held that the appeal remained incompetent because the petitioner failed to exhaust the mandatory departmental appeal remedy required by the proviso to Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Court affirmed that an appeal to the Service Tribunal is not maintainable unless the aggrieved civil servant has first exhausted all available departmental remedies, rendering the petition for leave to appeal meritless.
Questions settled- Does the failure to exhaust departmental remedies render an appeal before the Service Tribunal incompetent?
- Does Section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 apply to suits dismissed prior to the commencement of the Act?
- Is an appeal to a Service Tribunal maintainable if the aggrieved civil servant has not first pursued available departmental appeals?
- EHSAN ULLAH vs MESSERS ANWAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND ANOTHER1979 PLC 479 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-07-15Read full judgment →