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.
- EHSAN ELAHI AND OTHERS vs The STATE1979 SCMR 11 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed by the petitioners against the Supreme Court of Pakistan's judgment dated 31st May 1977, which had dismissed their Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1976. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to a review of the previous judgment based on alleged errors patent on the face of the record regarding the appreciation of evidence. Specifically, the petitioners argued that the majority opinion failed to consider alternative hypotheses beneficial to the accused and that the conviction of one petitioner, Nur Hussain, lacked sufficient corroboration after other evidence was rejected. The Court held that the arguments presented did not constitute an error patent on the face of the record, as they merely sought a re-evaluation of the material already considered. The Court reaffirmed that a review petition cannot be used to re-argue the merits of a case or challenge the factual conclusions reached by the original bench. Consequently, the Court found the contentions devoid of substance and dismissed the petition, maintaining the original conviction.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be used to re-argue the merits of a case already decided by the Supreme Court?
- What constitutes an error patent on the face of the record sufficient to justify a review of a criminal judgment?
- Is the existence of a dissenting opinion in a judgment sufficient grounds to grant a review petition based on reasonable doubt?
- EASTERN FEDERAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs BAWANY INDUSTRIES1979 CLC 321 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff insurance company filed a suit against the defendant for the recovery of Rs. 90,586.71, representing its 49% share of the premium for four joint fire insurance policies. The defendant contended that the policies were illegal and unenforceable under Section 3-C(4) of the Insurance Act 1938 and Rule 44 of the Insurance Rules 1958 because the premium was not paid in advance. The High Court of Sindh examined the policies and found that they were backed by a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,50,000 and partial cash payments, which fully satisfied the statutory requirements. The Court held that the policies were valid and enforceable. Furthermore, the Court noted that the defendant had explicitly admitted its liability in writing in response to a notice under Section 163 of the Companies Act 1913. The Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff with interest, establishing that general insurance policies backed by a bank guarantee or partial payments to a co-insurer comply with the law and are fully enforceable.
Questions settled- Whether a general insurance policy is legally enforceable if the premium is secured by a bank guarantee rather than paid in cash?
- Does payment of the full premium to one co-insurer satisfy the statutory requirements for all co-insurers under a joint insurance policy?
- Can a party avoid liability for an insurance premium by claiming a mistake of law after having explicitly admitted the liability in writing?
- Can a court grant relief under Section 65 or Section 70 of the Contract Act 1872 if a contract is found to be technically non-compliant but not illegal or immoral?
- EASTERN COMPANY (PRIVATE) LTD. AND 2 Others vs Mst. GUL BEGUM AND 0Therss1979 SCMR 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The underlying matter involved a petition for the winding up of a private limited company under Section 162 of the Companies Act, filed by the respondents. The petitioners had raised a preliminary objection challenging the respondents' locus standi to initiate winding-up proceedings. The High Court dismissed this objection, finding that the respondents' claims as shareholders, contributories, and creditors were sufficient to maintain the petition at that preliminary stage. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld this decision, noting that the question of whether the respondents actually qualified as creditors or contributories required a full trial and the recording of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that a petition for winding up cannot be summarily dismissed at the preliminary stage based on disputed facts regarding the petitioner's standing, as such issues are matters for trial. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a petition for the winding up of a company be dismissed at a preliminary stage based on disputed facts regarding the petitioner's standing?
- Is the status of a petitioner as a creditor or contributory in a winding-up proceeding a question that requires trial and evidence?
- Does a court have the authority to dismiss a winding-up petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on a preliminary objection regarding locus standi?
- EASTERN BANK LTD. vs A. KARIM & Co., KARACHI AND 4 Other1979 PLD Karachi 632 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-26Read full judgment →
- E. A. EVANS vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1979 SCMR 515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- DURRANI vs MUHAMMAD JAN AND 2 Other1979 PLD Quetta 17 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-11-04Read full judgment →
- DREAMLAND PICTURES vs SHAN PRODUCTIONS ETC.1979 PLD Lahore 472 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-09Read full judgment →
- DR. SAJJAD AHMAD AND Another vs DR. MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND 10 Other1979 PLD Lahore 304 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These writ petitions challenged orders passed by an Additional District Judge in revisional jurisdiction, which set aside the trial court's consolidated issues in a civil suit regarding land ownership and fraudulent mutations. The petitioners contended that the trial court's issues were sufficient and that the Additional District Judge's order framing additional, specific issues was legally flawed. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with interlocutory orders in civil proceedings where an alternative remedy exists, and whether the framing of issues was correct. The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable because the petitioners had an adequate alternative remedy by way of appeal against the final decree. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the Additional District Judge's order, ruling that under Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, issues must be framed distinctly for every material proposition of fact and law affirmed by one party and denied by the other, rather than consolidated. The petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Is an order passed by an Additional District Judge in revision regarding the framing of issues amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the availability of an appeal against a final decree bar the exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction against interlocutory orders in civil suits?
- Under Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, must a court frame distinct issues for every material proposition of fact and law?
- DR. BASHIR AHMAD BUTT vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1979 PLD Lahore 751 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-09Read full judgment →
- DR. BADRUL HAQ vs AHMAD AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Karachi 482 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-21Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN ETC.S1979 SCMR 513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition arises from a dispute over a house in Khushab, District Sargodha, subjected to settlement operations. The petitioner's claim was initially rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in November 1959, while the respondent obtained transfer documents in 1960 and 1962. Nearly fourteen years later, in 1973, the petitioner filed a belated revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner, which was allowed without addressing the massive delay. The Lahore High Court set aside the Settlement Commissioner's order via a writ petition, and the Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's leave to appeal. The core legal question concerns the permissibility of condoning an unexplained, inordinate delay of fourteen years in filing a revision petition under settlement laws and the standard for review. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner erred in law by condoning a patently time-barred revision without sufficient cause, and since the review petition merely re-argued the merits without establishing any legal ground for review, it was dismissed as frivolous.
Questions settled- Can a revision petition be maintained after an inordinate and unexplained delay of fourteen years?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere in review proceedings where the applicant merely re-argues the merits of the case?
- Is a settlement commissioner justified in allowing a time-barred revision without recording a finding on sufficient cause for delay?
- DOST MUHAMMAD COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs FOURTH SIND LABOUR1979 PLC 367 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-03Read full judgment →
- DOST MOHAMMAD COTTON MILLS LTD. vs MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHANI AND Atherss1979 SCMR 304, 1979 SCMR 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a High Court order that upheld a Labour Court decision regarding the termination of the respondent's employment. The respondent, a Chief Accountant, had his services terminated for unsatisfactory performance, which he successfully challenged before the Labour Court as an unlawful dismissal rather than a simple termination. The core legal questions were whether the respondent qualified as a 'workman' under the relevant labour laws and whether his removal constituted a dismissal requiring adherence to statutory procedures. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts, noting that the respondent lacked supervisory functions at the time of termination, thereby qualifying as a workman. Furthermore, the Court held that the termination was substantively a dismissal based on performance, which fell within the Labour Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate. The Court affirmed that, unlike common law contracts of service where specific performance is restricted, the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 empowers Labour Courts to order reinstatement. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the Labour Court acted within its jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does a Labour Court have the jurisdiction to order the reinstatement of an employee under the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Can a High Court interfere with findings of fact made by a tribunal of limited jurisdiction if the decision is based on irrelevant facts or lacks evidence?
- Does an employee who lacks supervisory functions qualify as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- DOST MOHAMMAD COTTON MILLS LTD. vs MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHANI AND Another1979 SCMR 382 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from an order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the decision of the First Sind Labour Court, Karachi. The Labour Court had held that the termination of the respondent-employee's services by the petitioner-company was in effect an order of dismissal rather than simple termination, and that the respondent fell within the definition of a workman under the applicable labour laws. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent qualified as a workman and whether his termination constituted a dismissal, as well as whether the Labour Court possessed jurisdiction to order reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower tribunals and the High Court classifying the respondent as a workman and the action as a dismissal were based on evidence and free from legal error. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the relevant labour legislation empowers the Labour Court to direct reinstatement, distinguishing the case from general principles governing contracts of service under the Specific Relief Act. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an employee holding the designation of Chief Accountant can be considered a workman under the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Does an order terminating service due to unsatisfactory work amount to an order of dismissal?
- Can a Labour Court order the reinstatement of an illegally dismissed employee under the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Can a new legal argument not raised before the High Court be permitted to be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR DIVISION, SUKKUR1979 PLC 285 · Labour Court · 1978-11-28Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAY, KARACHI vs LABOUR COURT1979 PLD Karachi 443 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-24Read full judgment →
- DODO AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 241(1) · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-21Read full judgment →
- DITTO AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 713 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-11Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MIRPURKHAS vs MUHAMMAD IRSHAD AND 2 OTHERS1979 PLC 469 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-05-26Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF And Another1979 P Cr. L J 59 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sought the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated under Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, pending before a Magistrate. The petitioner contended that the criminal case was a malicious attempt to harass him arising from a civil dispute. The core legal question was whether the enactment of Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, ousted the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A to quash criminal proceedings. The Court held that Section 249-A is declaratory of the inherent power to prevent abuse of process and does not bar the High Court's jurisdiction. However, it established the principle that Section 249-A provides a speedy remedy in the original jurisdiction. Consequently, as a rule of judicial propriety, an accused must first exhaust the remedy of acquittal before the trial court under Section 249-A before invoking the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 561-A. The High Court will only intervene in exceptional circumstances where the trial court remedy is insufficient. The petition was dismissed as premature.
Questions settled- Does the enactment of Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bar the High Court's inherent power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Must an accused first seek acquittal under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, before invoking the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Under what circumstances will the High Court exercise its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings despite the availability of a remedy before the trial court?
- DIN MUHAMMAD vs BASHIR AHMAD AND 5 OTHERS1979 CLC 466 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD ETC vs TUFAIL MUHAMMAD ETC.1979 PLD Lahore 826 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD AND Another vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE ETC.S1979 SCMR 508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan dismissing a constitutional petition concerning the cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners under section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved the validity of successive orders passed by revenue and administrative authorities regarding bail under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since challan had been submitted and the Deputy Commissioner had taken cognizance of the case, the petitioners were at liberty to apply afresh for bail before the competent authority or the President of the Tribunal under section 17 of the Ordinance. The Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition, establishing that accused persons should seek fresh recourse for bail before the trial forum when challan has been submitted.
Questions settled- Can an accused person apply afresh for bail under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968 after challan has been submitted and cognizance taken?
- Whether the Board of Revenue has revisional jurisdiction under section 24 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968?
- Is an appellate order passed under section 23 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968 sustainable if passed without providing an opportunity of being heard to the complainant?
- DEUTACHE DAMPSCHIFFAHRTS GESELLSCHAFT "HANSA" vs MUHAMMAD AQUIL1979 PLD Karachi 409 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD. KARACHI vs PRESIDING OFFICER ,LABOUR COURT1979 P LC 50 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-19Read full judgment →
- DAWOOD AND 2 Others vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER---1979 P Cr. L J 569 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-20Read full judgment →
- DARYA KHAN AND Another vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 625 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-04Read full judgment →
- DALIL KHAN AND ANOTHER vs SARDAR KHAN AND 2 Trims1979 CLC 104 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the order of the Additional District Judge, Mianwali, which reversed a trial court's decision to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a civil court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate a suit challenging an order passed by a Land Commission authority regarding the validity of a land sale transaction under the Land Reforms Regulation 1972. The appellants argued that the matter fell exclusively within the Land Commission's jurisdiction. The Court held that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It established that a tribunal of limited jurisdiction cannot confer authority upon itself by incorrectly determining the jurisdictional facts upon which its power depends. Consequently, if an authority acts outside the statutory framework or fails to correctly ascertain the facts foundational to its jurisdiction, its orders are not immune from challenge before a civil court. The Court affirmed that the civil court is the proper forum to determine title and the validity of such administrative orders when the jurisdictional prerequisites are contested.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging an order of a Land Commission authority when the jurisdictional facts are disputed?
- Can a tribunal of limited jurisdiction confer authority upon itself by making a wrong decision regarding the existence of jurisdictional facts?
- Is an order passed by an authority under the Land Reforms Regulation immune from challenge in a civil court if the authority acted outside the four corners of the statute?
- Does the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, preclude a civil court from examining the validity of an administrative order?
- D. P. EDULJI & COMPANY LTD. vs SECRETARY, EXCISE & TAXATION ETC.s1979 P Cr. L J 1027 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-10Read full judgment →
- CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY vs HOSHANG M. DASTUR AND Other1979 SCMR 191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the specific performance of a lease agreement. The core legal question is whether the significant delay in filing the petition, which was barred by 272 days, constitutes 'sufficient cause' for condonation under the Supreme Court Rules, 1956. The petitioner, the Custodian of Enemy Property, attributed the delay to internal administrative deliberations and attempts to secure legal counsel. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence, noting that the delay arose from routine bureaucratic indecision rather than unavoidable circumstances. The Court reaffirmed that the government, as a litigant, is not entitled to preferential treatment or greater latitude regarding limitation periods compared to private citizens. Emphasizing that a valuable right accrues to the opposing party once the limitation period expires, the Court held that delay should not be lightly condoned without substantial reasons. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as time-barred, establishing that administrative negligence does not constitute sufficient cause for extending statutory limitation periods.
Questions settled- Is the government entitled to preferential treatment or greater latitude regarding limitation periods compared to private litigants?
- Does internal administrative indecision or routine bureaucratic delay constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under the Supreme Court Rules?
- Is the mere fact that valuable property rights are involved a sufficient ground for condoning inordinate delay in filing an appeal?
- CROWN BUS SERVICE LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE1979 PLD Lahore 25 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-24Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs MESSRS UNITED INSURANCE Co.1979 PLD Karachi 243 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-12Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs MESSRS H100sa OMAR & Co. LTD.1979 PLD Karachi 739 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-05Read full judgment →
- COLONY SARHAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD., NOWSHERA vs SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS1979 SCMR 640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal addresses the validity of amendments made to rule 8 of the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Yarn) Rules, 1968, and The Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Fabrics) Rules, 1968, promulgated under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The core legal questions involve whether the Central Board of Revenue acted intra vires when it amended the rebate rules to restrict export rebates to the production capacity of specific categories of cloth and yarn, and whether excise duty can legally be levied on goods manufactured for export. The Supreme Court held that the amendments are intra vires, valid, and neither arbitrary nor retrospective in an illegal sense, and that excise duty is constitutionally leviable upon the production and manufacture of goods irrespective of their subsequent export. The key principles laid down are that the power to grant a rebate under section 37(2)(xvi) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is limited to refunding duty actually paid or due on produced categories, that subordinate legislation will not be struck down as unreasonable unless manifestly unjust or oppressive, and that excise duties are taxes on local production or manufacture and may validly apply to goods later exported.
Questions settled- Whether the Central Board of Revenue has the authority under section 37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to restrict export rebates category-wise based on production capacity?
- Can excise duty be validly levied under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on goods that are subsequently exported out of Pakistan?
- Does the statutory power to grant a rebate of excise duty permit an exporter to claim a refund exceeding the excise duty paid or payable on the production capacity of the exported goods?
- In what circumstances can subordinate legislation framed by a delegatee of the Legislature be struck down by courts on the ground of unreasonableness?
- Chowdhry RIAZ AHMED vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERPLD 1979 Karachi l l9 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-18Read full judgment →
- Choudhury MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs MESSRS CENTRAL COTTON MILLS LTD.1979 PLC 488 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-07-23Read full judgment →
- CHLORIDE PAKISTAN LTD. KARACHI vs ANWAR HUSSAIN1979 PLC 152 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-05-09Read full judgment →
- CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, AUQAF, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE vs Mst. NAJAB1979 PLD Peshawar 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-09-27Read full judgment →
- CHARLES PETER vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 25 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
- CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, KARACHI vs KARACHI AND ANOTHER1979 PLC 179 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-26Read full judgment →
- Chairman RANA MOTORS LTD. vs MUNAWAR ALI SHAH1979 PLC 329 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-05-24Read full judgment →
- Ch. NASIR AHMAD vs Haji MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1979 SCMR 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an eviction order passed against a tenant by a Rent Controller, which was subsequently upheld by the Additional District Judge and the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions were whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed, specifically regarding the service of statutory notice under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, and whether the tenant was denied a fair opportunity to argue his case. The Supreme Court held that the finding regarding the service of notice was a question of fact already determined by the lower courts, confirming the existence of a statutory tenancy. Regarding the procedural objection, the Court found that the tenant had been provided ample opportunity to present his arguments in the appellate and revisional stages, rendering the initial grievance insignificant. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming the eviction order while granting the tenant three months to vacate the premises, subject to the regular payment of rent.
Questions settled- Does the service of notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 establish the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Can a finding of fact regarding the service of notice be challenged in a second appeal?
- Does the failure to argue a case before a Rent Controller invalidate an eviction order if the party was heard in subsequent appellate proceedings?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs MUHAMMAD RASHID1979 PLD Lahore 273 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-07Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs LT. GEN. FAIZ ALI CHISHTI ETC.S1979 SCMR 424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a contempt petition filed by a practising advocate against the respondents alleging a conspiracy to arrange firing at the residence of High Court Judges and the making of statements in newspapers obstructing the course of justice during the pendency of a murder appeal. The Supreme Court examined the petition and a subsequent miscellaneous application requesting the contempt matter to be heard before the decision of a pending review petition. The Court observed that no copies or details of the alleged statements were provided and that the petitioner failed to explain the nexus between the contempt matter and the review petition. Holding that the petition was motivated and not genuinely intended to uphold the dignity of the judiciary, the Supreme Court dismissed both the contempt petition and the miscellaneous application.
Questions settled- Can a contempt petition be entertained without furnishing copies or details of the alleged statements claimed to obstruct the course of justice?
- Whether a contempt petition aimed at purposes other than upholding the dignity of the judiciary can be dismissed as motivated?
- Ch. IJAZ MASOOD vs DEPUTY MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR AND Other1979 PLD Lahore 719 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-19Read full judgment →
- Ch. BARKAT ALI vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 352 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-06Read full judgment →
- Ch. ATTA MUHAMMAD AND 10 OTHERS vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION Erc.1979 CLC 294 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from the decision of the Federal and Provincial Land Commissions to resume agricultural land in excess of 100 acres from a retired civil servant under Paragraph 10 of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972. Prior to the promulgation of the Regulation, the civil servant had executed a registered agreement to sell the land to the petitioners, received full consideration, and executed an irrevocable general power of attorney in their favour, delivering physical possession. The Land Commissions rejected the petitioners' claim for exemption under the Commission's policy letter, holding that an agreement to sell did not constitute a complete transfer. The Lahore High Court held that under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872, the power of attorney was coupled with an interest and was truly irrevocable, effectively removing the civil servant from ownership and possession. The Court further held that the transaction was not void under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912, as the status of 'deemed tenant' under Section 184(4) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 did not retrospectively invalidate the original grant's conditions. Deciding that the Land Commissions misconstrued the jurisdictional facts of ownership, possession, and transfer, the Court declared the resumption orders to be without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Does an agency coupled with an interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872 remain irrevocable even if not explicitly labeled as such?
- Can the Land Commission resume land from a transferor under Paragraph 10 of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 when the transferor has parted with possession and received full consideration under an irrevocable power of attorney?
- Does a statutory deeming clause under Section 184(4) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 retrospectively apply the restrictive transfer provisions of Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 to a prior independent grant?
- Is the High Court empowered under its writ jurisdiction to review and correct an erroneous determination of jurisdictional facts by the Land Commission?
- Ch. ALIF DIN vs ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND ANOTHER1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 7 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-12-18Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL SABOOR vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 226 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-29Read full judgment →
- Ch. ABDUL RASHID vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 803 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses a constitutional petition filed by a former Director of the Capital Development Authority (CDA) challenging his removal from service under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal question revolves around whether the CDA Service Regulations, 1973 constitute statutory rules, thereby transforming the employment relationship from a simple master-and-servant contract to one protected by statutory provisions, making constitutional jurisdiction available. The Lahore High Court held that the CDA's service regulations are non-statutory in character, as the power to frame them is directory and distinct from statutory rule-making powers, leaving the employment governed by the ordinary principle of master and servant. The court laid down the principle that mere incorporation of statutory rules into administrative service regulations does not elevate those regulations to statutory instruments, and in the absence of a violation of statutory rules or the holding of a public or statutory office, constitutional petitions by corporate employees are incompetent.
Questions settled- Whether the service regulations framed by the Capital Development Authority under its Ordinance constitute statutory rules?
- Does the principle of master and servant govern the employment relationship of CDA employees in the absence of statutory service rules?
- Can constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 be invoked by an employee of a statutory corporation whose employment is governed by non-statutory regulations?
- Does the incorporation of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules into agency regulations make those regulations statutory instruments?
- Ch. ABDUL GHANI GHUMMAN vs MURREE IMPROVEMENT TRUST, MURREE1979 SCMR 622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The dispute arose from the failure of the Murree Improvement Trust to provide a suitable approach road to Plot No. 53, allotted to the appellant in 1954. After arbitration proceedings regarding the passage were initiated and an award was set aside by the Civil Court, the High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal. The appellant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that the arbitration clause in the sale agreement covered the dispute. During the pendency of the Supreme Court appeal, the Trust resumed the plot due to the appellant's failure to construct a building, a decision challenged in a separate pending civil suit. The Supreme Court facilitated a settlement wherein the appellant agreed to accept the existing passage provided by the Trust, provided the Trust considered restoring the plot, which had since been auctioned to a third party. The Court disposed of the appeal based on this compromise, allowing the appellant to seek revival of the appeal if his grievances regarding the restoration of the plot were not addressed by the Trust.
Questions settled- Does an arbitration clause in a sale agreement cover disputes regarding the provision of essential amenities like access roads to an allotted plot?
- Can a public authority resume a plot of land for non-construction when the authority itself has failed to provide the necessary access required for construction?
- Is an appellate court empowered to dispose of an appeal based on a compromise reached between the parties during the hearing?
- CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1979 PLC 545 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-10-20Read full judgment →
- BUXLY PAINTS LTD. vs IZHARULLAH1979 PLC 7 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-04-12Read full judgment →
- BULAND KHAN AND 6 Another vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND 6 Other1979 PLD -Lahore 237 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from a suit filed by respondents challenging an alienation of their property by way of mortgage executed by their father in 1954. The trial court and the appellate court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Before the High Court, the appellants contended that the mortgage was within the father's authority under Islamic law and that any unauthorized transfer by a natural guardian is merely voidable, making the suit subject to the three-year limitation period under Article 44 of the Limitation Act 1908. The High Court examined the scope of a natural guardian's authority under Mahomedan law, concluding that paying off debts of extended family members does not constitute legal necessity. However, the Court held that an unauthorized alienation of immovable property by a natural guardian is voidable, not void ab initio. Furthermore, Article 44 applies to natural guardians and is not restricted to court-appointed guardians under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. Because the suit was instituted beyond three years of the plaintiffs attaining majority, the High Court held it was time-barred, allowed the appeal, and dismissed the suit.
Questions settled- Does Article 44 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to transfers of immovable property made by a natural guardian who is not court-appointed?
- Is an unauthorized alienation of a minor's immovable property by a natural guardian void ab initio or merely voidable?
- Does the payment of a relative's debts constitute a legal necessity permitting a natural guardian to alienate a minor's immovable property under Islamic law?
- BUKHSH ELAHI AND 5 Others vs THE STATE-Opponent1979 P Cr. L J 585 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
- BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AND Other vs Miss1979 PLD Supreme Court 909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education against a High Court judgment that set aside the disqualification of a student. The student had been accused of cheating in an examination based on allegations of tampered answer sheets. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings, which were conducted ex parte and relied on evidence collected behind the student's back, were legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary action was invalid, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, requiring that evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused and that charges be based on substantial material rather than mere suspicion. The Court found that the Board’s proceedings were arbitrary, lacked sufficient evidence, and violated fundamental procedural fairness. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Board's petition, upholding the finding that the disqualification order was without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Can a disciplinary body rely on evidence collected in the absence of the accused student?
- Does a charge-sheet that merely reproduces the wording of a rule without factual details satisfy legal requirements?
- Is a court justified in declaring a disciplinary order to be without lawful authority when it is based on suspicion rather than evidence?
- BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY EDUCATION vs KI'ialid MAHMOOD1979 PLD Lahore 39 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-04Read full judgment →
- BILQIS vs KOHINOOR INDUSTRIES LTD., LAHORE1979 PLD Lahore 387 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the order of the trial court dismissing the petitioner's application under Order XXVI, rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to examine two witnesses through a commission at Karachi where they resided and conducted business. The core legal question was whether the conditions for issuing a commission under Order XXVI, rule 4 are independent and whether their fulfilment creates an absolute right for a party to obtain a commission, or if the court retains judicial discretion. The Lahore High Court held that the requirements under clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Order XXVI, rule 4(1) are indeed independent, meaning a person need not satisfy all of them to be eligible. However, fulfilling one does not entitle a party to a commission as a matter of right; the word 'may' confers a judicial discretion upon the court to refuse the commission if it would be an abuse of process, unnecessary, or intended to cause delay or harassment. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Are the conditions for issuing a commission under Order XXVI rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 independent of each other?
- Does a party have an absolute right to obtain a commission for the examination of a witness once one of the conditions under Order XXVI rule 4 is fulfilled?
- What is the scope of the court's discretion under the word 'may' in Order XXVI rule 4 when deciding whether to issue a commission?
- Can a witness residing anywhere in Pakistan be summoned to attend court in person following the amendment to Order XVI rule 19?
- BILLU Alias INAYATULLAH vs THE STATE1979 PLD Supreme Court 956 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that reversed the petitioner's acquittal for murder. The core legal question concerned the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction to interfere with an acquittal in a state appeal. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court has the power to review evidence in acquittal appeals, it must adhere to established principles: giving weight to the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility, respecting the presumption of innocence, and ensuring the accused receives the benefit of any reasonable doubt. In this case, the High Court erred by misreading the record, overlooking significant contradictions in the prosecution's ocular evidence, and improperly relying on a retracted statement made by the accused in the committing court. The trial court had correctly identified these evidentiary gaps and inconsistencies. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court’s judgment was set aside, and the original acquittal was restored, as the appellate interference was not justified under the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.
Questions settled- What is the scope of the High Court's power to interfere with an order of acquittal in a state appeal?
- Can a High Court base a conviction on a statement made by an accused in a committing court that was subsequently retracted in the trial court?
- Does the High Court have the authority to reverse an acquittal based on a re-appreciation of evidence without identifying a glaring miscarriage of justice?
- BIBI AND Others vs BASHIRAN AND Other1979 SCMR 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition challenging an order passed by a Settlement Commissioner. The dispute originated from the inheritance of landed property owned by a displaced person, Ghulam Muhammad, which had been mutated in favor of the petitioners in 1953. Respondent No. 1, claiming to be an heir as the daughter of the deceased's daughter, challenged this mutation. Following protracted litigation, the High Court had previously remanded the case to the Settlement Commissioner, who subsequently determined that the respondent was entitled to a share in the inheritance based on evidence presented. The petitioners challenged this finding before the High Court, which dismissed their writ petition in limine. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the decision, finding that the Settlement Commissioner's order was based on a factual determination supported by the petitioners' own earlier depositions. Consequently, the Court held that it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by a competent authority, thereby dismissing the petition for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact recorded by a competent authority when it is based on the evidence of the parties themselves?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against an order of a Settlement Commissioner that is based on a factual determination?
- BHOORO vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 49 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-21Read full judgment →
- BEGUM RAZIA MUTTAQI AND 6 Other vs STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION1979 PLD Lahore 930 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-06Read full judgment →
- BEERO vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 816 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-24Read full judgment →
- BAZ MUHAMMAD vs COMMISSIONER, QUETTA DIVISION, QUETTA AND Another1979 PLD Quetta 113 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-04-14Read full judgment →
- BAZ DIN AND Another SHUJAAT KHAN vs PRESIDENT, SPECIAL MILTARY COURT1979 SCMR 541 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- BAWANY SUGAR MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND 111979 PLD Karachi 750 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-11Read full judgment →
- BASHIRAN vs BAKHSHA1979 PLD Lahore 40 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-18Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AND Another vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 1020 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-19Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs THE STATE1979 PLD Karachi 147 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-02Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SIND AND 4 Other1979 PLD Karachi 534 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-19Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs Mst. JAHAN ARA BEGUM1979 CLC 439 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD DURRANI AND Others vs SHAHZAD MIR AND Other1979 SCMR 394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over compensation for improvements—specifically an orchard, houses, and a tube-well—made on land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector referred the dispute regarding entitlement to the compensation amount to the Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners sought leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court order that, while dismissing the first respondent's appeal, directed the Senior Civil Judge to expedite the disposal of the pending objection petition. The core legal question was whether the High Court's directions regarding the expeditious disposal of the case were improper or warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's directions were within its discretion and proper. The Court expressed regret over the trial court's failure to adhere to the High Court's timeline, noting that long adjournments defeated the spirit of the judicial directive. The petition was dismissed, with the principle affirmed that trial courts must strictly adhere to higher court directions for expeditious case disposal.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court have grounds to interfere with a High Court's discretionary direction to a trial court for the expeditious disposal of a case?
- Is a long adjournment by a trial court, contrary to a specific High Court directive for early hearing, considered a valid ground for granting leave to appeal?
- BARKAT vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 823 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-30Read full judgment →
- BARKAT ALI vs The STATE1979 SCMR 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had declined his application for suspension of sentence and release on bail pending his criminal appeal against conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court had instead expedited the hearing of the main appeal, directing that it be fixed within six months. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing bail while expediting the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no illegality or procedural violation, as it refrained from commenting on the merits and reasonably accommodated the petitioner by expediting the trial. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where a High Court expeditiously fixes a criminal appeal for hearing within a short timeframe, the refusal of post-conviction bail pending appeal does not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing post-conviction bail when it has ordered an early hearing of the criminal appeal?
- Does the refusal to grant bail pending an expedited appeal suffer from any illegality when the High Court expresses no opinion on the merits?
- BARKAT ALI AND Others vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 147 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-26Read full judgment →
- BARISH ALI AND Another vs The STATE1979 SCMR 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the murder and assault convictions of the appellants. The core legal questions involve the assessment of tainted ocular evidence, the necessity of independent corroboration in cases of deep-seated village enmity, and the applicability of sudden fight exceptions. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt due to heavily interested and hostile witnesses, lack of independent corroboration, discarded recovery evidence, and material contradictions regarding who fired the fatal shot. The appeal was allowed, and the convictions and sentences were set aside, establishing principles regarding the unreliability of related eye-witness testimony without independent support in sudden, unpremeditated affrays.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony from heavily interested and related witnesses can sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to examine independent eye-witnesses available at the scene weaken its case?
- Can a conviction for murder stand when the medical evidence and site inspection render the specific attribution of the fatal shot doubtful?
- Whether the recovery of a weapon admitted to be already in police possession can serve as valid corroboration?
- BANTVA MEMON CO OPERATVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND Others vs ANIS1979 SCMR 77 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from an interim order passed by the Sind High Court restraining the petitioners from making any construction on the disputed land pending the disposal of the main intra-court appeal. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in issuing an injunctive order against the petitioners without rendering a speaking order addressing crucial considerations such as a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, accepted it, and held that the impugned order was legally infirm as it was not a speaking order and failed to deal with the necessary judicial considerations. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law after hearing the parties.
Questions settled- Whether an interim injunctive order passed by a High Court without considering the balance of convenience and irreparable loss is sustainable?
- Is a High Court required to pass a speaking order while granting interim relief affecting property rights?
- Can an appellate court remand a matter back for a fresh decision when the impugned order fails to address material contentions of the parties?
- BAKSH TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs ABDUL RASHID1979 PLC 506 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-07-28Read full judgment →
- BAKHTIAR ALI AFGHANI vs ROTI CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD., LAHORE1979 PLC 79 · Labour Court · 1977-09-30Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 138 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-06Read full judgment →
- BAGHALI AND Another vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 947 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-07Read full judgment →
- BAGH AND 3 Other vs THE STATE1979 PLD Karachi 261 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-17Read full judgment →
- BADSHAH KHAN ETC. vs PECO LTD.1979 PLC 310 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-10-04Read full judgment →
- BACHAL Alias MUKHTIAR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 455 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-05Read full judgment →
- BABU AND 2 Other vs THE STATE1979 PLD Karachi 540 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-22Read full judgment →
- BA DAR ALI AND ANOTHER vs GHULAM RASOOL1979 CLC 46 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-23Read full judgment →
- AZIZ AHMAD RATHORE vs SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 68 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1978-08-19Read full judgment →
- AZIMAN vs ADDITIONAL CITY MAGISTRATE, NORTH NAZIMABAD, KARACHI AND Another1979 P Cr. L J 733 · Sindh High Court · 1978-07-17Read full judgment →
- AZHAR MAHMOOD ETC. vs MUHAMMAD KHAN1979 SCMR 431 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-09Read full judgment →
- AZEEM KHAN vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 265 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-01-22Read full judgment →
- AYUB KHAN vs HAQDAD KHAN AND 9 Other1979 PLD Peshawar 87 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-03-31Read full judgment →
- AVAIS MAZHAR HUSSAIN vs ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 129 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-03-02Read full judgment →
- ATTA HUSSAIN KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN AND Other1979 SCMR 630 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a regular second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed lower court decrees in favor of the plaintiff-respondent. The core legal question concerned whether a registered deed executed by the petitioner prior to the partition and subsequent legislation—whereby land allotted to him in Pakistan in lieu of property fictitiously transferred in India was to be treated as part of their late father's ancestral estate—constituted an enforceable family settlement or a mere gratuitous admission. The Supreme Court held that the document embodied a bona fide family settlement arrived at for lawful consideration to maintain peace and harmony among heirs, and was fully binding. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the transaction was not hit by subsequent legislation and that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of the property and the family arrangement were unassailable. The key principle laid down is that a bona fide family arrangement or settlement regarding future inheritance executed voluntarily for consideration is valid, enforceable, and distinct from a gratuitous transfer or a testamentary disposition.
Questions settled- Whether a deed executed by a family member acknowledging property as ancestral and surrendering rights for peace and harmony constitutes an enforceable family settlement?
- Can a plea regarding the cancellation of a document or the distinction of personal property be raised for the first time in second appeal without being pleaded or put in issue?
- Does Section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 invalidate a voluntary agreement executed by an allottee regarding the future devolution of land prior to the Act coming into force?
- ATLAS BATTERY LTD., KARACHI vs SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND1979 PLD Karachi 545 · 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. Without the text of the judgment, no factual analysis or legal extraction can be performed.
- ATAUL HAQ AND Another vs Master GHULAM RASOOL1979 SCMR 401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed in limine the petitioner's regular second appeal upholding the pre-emption decree granted in favor of the respondent. The core legal question concerns the failure of the lower courts to explicitly dispose of issue No. 4 regarding the service of a legal notice on the plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings and the High Court's view were fully justified, as the petitioner failed to lead any evidence or duly prove the copies of the notices at the trial stage, and no statutory notice as required by law was served on the plaintiff-pre-emptor. The petition was accordingly dismissed on merits after condoning the delay.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of courts to dispose of an issue is fatal when no evidence was led by the party on that point?
- Is a pre-emption suit liable to succeed where no statutory notice as required by the Punjab Pre-emption Act was served on the plaintiff?
- Whether documents produced at a late stage without being duly proved in evidence can be relied upon?
- ATA MOHAMMAD vs SABRA AND 4 Other1979 SCMR 267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's application for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Sessions Judge in a case involving murder and murderous assault. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting and refusing to cancel bail where cross-versions exist, the accused also sustained injuries during the incident, and the question of which party was the aggressor requires determination at trial. The Supreme Court held that the High Court properly exercised its discretion in declining to cancel bail under the circumstances, noting that contentions regarding the misuse of bail concessions could be raised before the trial court with proper material. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that bail granted upon consideration of cross-injuries and the issue of aggression warrants no interference by the apex court at the pre-trial stage.
Questions settled- Whether bail once granted to accused persons in a murder case should be cancelled when cross-injuries are sustained by both parties and the question of aggression is yet to be determined?
- Can an allegation of abuse of bail concession by suborning witnesses be raised before the trial court with proper materials?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's refusal to cancel bail?
- ASSOCIATED DRILLERS LTD., KARACHI vs MESSRS DIRK VERSTOOP H. V., KARACHI1979 PLD Karachi 734 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by the plaintiff against a foreign defendant. The core legal question was whether the mere fact that a foreign entity is winding up its business in Pakistan and exporting its assets, thereby potentially rendering a future decree unexecutable, constitutes sufficient grounds for attachment before judgment. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite intent on the part of the defendant to obstruct or delay the execution of any potential decree. The Court emphasized that the defendant was exporting its machinery in the ordinary course of business upon contract completion, not with a mala fide intent to defeat the plaintiff's claim. The key principle laid down is that the provisions of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are not triggered solely by the difficulty of executing a decree against a foreign entity; rather, the plaintiff must affirmatively prove that the defendant’s actions are specifically motivated by an intent to obstruct or delay the execution of a decree.
Questions settled- Is the mere fact that a foreign defendant is winding up its business in Pakistan and exporting assets sufficient to justify attachment before judgment?
- Must a plaintiff prove an intent to obstruct or delay the execution of a decree to invoke Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the court have the power to order attachment before judgment for an unliquidated claim where the defendant is acting in the ordinary course of business?
- ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LABOUR & INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, KARACHI vs M.1979 PLC 326 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-11-17Read full judgment →
- ASMAT JAVED, PRESIDENT OF P. I. A. C. EMPLOYEES' UNION (REGD.), KARACHI vs RAFIQ AHMED AND ANOTHER1979 PLC 96 · National Industrial Relations CommissionRead full judgment →
- ASHRAF TARIQ vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 526 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-23Read full judgment →