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.

• TORAB SHAH vs The STATE1978 SCMR 430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-11
  post-arrest bailcustoms offencessmugglingrecording of evidencespecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the refusal of post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was charged under the Customs Act 1969 and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1950 for allegedly transporting iron scrap and steel files. The core legal question was whether the lower courts were justified in withholding bail until the recording of prosecution evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that postponing the consideration of bail until after recording evidence was unwarranted, especially where the allegedly objectionable goods and the vehicle had already been released to their owners, and the offences charged were not punishable with death or transportation for life. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, accepted it, and granted bail to the petitioner, establishing the principle that bail matters should be decided on broad facts available without unnecessarily awaiting the commencement or progress of trial evidence where no extraordinary circumstances justify such a postponement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be withheld merely on the ground that no evidence has been recorded by the trial court?
  • Is the postponement of a bail decision justified when the allegedly objectionable goods and vehicle have already been released to their owners?
  • Does the absence of a punishment of death or transportation for life weigh in favour of granting bail in customs-related offences?
  Read full judgment →
• TM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 763 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-20Read full judgment →
• THE UNIVERSAL LIFE & GENERAL INSURANCE Co. LTD.,LAHORE vs EJAZ1978 PLD Lahore 475 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-26Read full judgment →
• THE UNIVERSAL LIFE & GENERAL INSURANCE Co. LTD., LAHORE vs EJAZ1978 PLD Lahore 475 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-26Read full judgment →
• THE SURTI MUSLIM CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, KARACHI vs THE ISLAMIC1978 PLD Karachi 604 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-08Read full judgment →
• The STATE- Petitioner vs Ch. ALTAF HUSSAIN MAGISTRATE IST CLASS, GUJRAT1978 PLD Lahore 1259 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-18Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO AND Other Accused1978 PLD Lahore 523 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-18Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ZAFAR MUHAMMAD1978 P Cr. L J 480 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-15Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs SHAFIUZZAMAN AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 564 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-09Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs SADIQ HUSSAIN1978 Cr. PLJ 523 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-05Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs RAMZAN ETC.PLD 1978 Rev. 60 Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1978-01-04Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Raja MUZAFFAR ALI AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 118 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERs1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 86 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-04-16Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MR. ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO1978 P Cr. L J 321 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-08Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MIR ZAMAN1978 SCMR 298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-13
  post-arrest bailacquittal appealnon-bailable warrantcriminal appealwithdrawal of petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Mir Zaman, who was previously acquitted by the Peshawar High Court of murder and attempted murder charges. Following the High Court's acquittal, the State filed a petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was granted. Consequently, the Supreme Court issued non-bailable warrants for the arrest of the respondent, leading to his detention in judicial lock-up. While the appeal against his acquittal was pending before the Supreme Court, the respondent filed the instant petition seeking release on bail. Upon the hearing of the petition, the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent expressly stated that he did not wish to press the application for bail. In light of this statement, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for bail. The judgment does not establish new legal principles but serves as a record of the dismissal of the bail application upon the request of the petitioner's counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Can a respondent in an appeal against acquittal, who has been arrested pursuant to a Supreme Court warrant, seek release on bail pending the disposal of the appeal?
  • What is the effect of a counsel's statement not to press a bail petition before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs KHALIQUR REHMAN1978 PLD Karachi 617 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
• THe STATE vs KHALIL AHMED AND OTHERS Accused1978 P Cr. L J 396 · Drug Court · 1977-10-15Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs JAFFAR AND 4 OTHERS1978 P Cr. L J 225 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-03Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs GHULAM YASIN1978 PLD Karachi 655 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs GHAZI AND 2 Other Accused/S1978 PLD Quetta 191 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-07-02Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ELYAS FAZAL ELLAHI Accused1978 P Cr. L J 179 · Drug Court · 1977-10-08Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Ch. ALTAF HUSSAIN MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS, GUJRAT AND 21978 PLD Lahore 1259 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-18Read full judgment →
• THE STATE THROUGH A.G., N.W. F. P. vs AMANULLAH AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Peshawar 146 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-12-21Read full judgment →
• THE STATE THROUGH A.-G., N: W. F. P. vs AMANULLAH AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Peshawar 146 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-12-21Read full judgment →
• THE QUETTA CO-OPERATIVE STORE LTD., QUETTA vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN THROUGH THE SECRFSTARY, AGRICULTURE AND 2 Other1978 PLD Quetta 174 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-05-24Read full judgment →
• THE MANAGER, CO-OPERATIVE TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KHANEWAL vs MUHAMMAD1978 PLC 40 · Labour Court · 1975-04-06Read full judgment →
• THE KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KARACHI vs WORKS CO OPERATIVE1978 SCMR 307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-08-12
  land allotmentexecution of judgmenthousing societystatutory notificationprice fixationdelay in execution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from enforcement proceedings under Order XLV, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, following earlier judgments of the Supreme Court concerning a long-standing land allotment dispute between the Karachi Development Authority and the Works Co-operative Housing Society. The core legal questions involved the extent of land the Society was entitled to under a government notification and the applicable price payable for such land. The Supreme Court held that the Society was entitled to the land originally reserved for Police Headquarters in specific blocks, subject to physical impossibilities such as existing constructions, but not to an absolute 350 acres if variations or prior valid allotments precluded it. Furthermore, the Court held that the price payable by the Society must be governed by the rates prevailing at the time of the original notification, as delays were attributable to the Authority's untenable positions. The key principle laid down is that executive commitments regarding land allotments must be honoured in good faith, and a party cannot be burdened with increased costs resulting from the opposing party's administrative delays and defaults.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a housing society is entitled to an absolute area of land or if the allotment is subject to physical limitations and prior authorized constructions?
  • At what rate should the price of land be calculated when the actual delivery of the area has been delayed due to the actions of the development authority?
  • How are previous judgments of the Supreme Court to be enforced in execution proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• THE INN, AIRPORT, KARACHI vs MAHMOOD ALI1978 PLC 347 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-07-26Read full judgment →
• THE COTTON TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI- vs MUHAMMAD1978 PLD Lahore 516 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-27Read full judgment →
• THE COTTON TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD1978 PLD Lahore 516 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-27Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX & INCOMETAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI vs MESSRS PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION LTD., RAWALPINDI1978 PLD Lahore 1027 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-03Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX & INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI vs MESSRS PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION LTD. RAWALPINDI1978 PLD Lahore 1027 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-03Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI vs Mst.1978 PLD Lahore 242 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-13Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE. RAWALPINDI vs Mst.1978 PLD Lahore 242 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-13Read full judgment →
• The COMMERCE BANK LTD., KARACHI vs HABIB BAKHSH AND ANOTHER S1978 PLD Quetta 45 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-09-23
  civil appealplaint signaturelimitation periodimplied agencyratification of contractadmissibility of judgmentsprocedural defectlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges a decree for the recovery of rent passed by the District Judge, Quetta. The core legal questions were whether a plaint not signed by one of the joint plaintiffs at the time of presentation is valid from the date of filing, whether previous inter-parties judgments in rent proceedings are admissible in evidence, and whether the appellant-Bank is liable for a lease agreement entered into by an official whose authority was disputed. The Court held that procedural defects like the omission of a signature on a plaint are curable and do not affect the original date of filing. It further held that while inter-parties judgments are not conclusive, they are admissible to prove admissions or the nature of prior pleadings. Finally, the Court found that the Bank’s subsequent conduct and negotiations constituted implied ratification of the agent's actions. The principle laid down is that procedural rules regarding pleadings should be liberally construed to advance substantive justice, and an agent's authority can be implied through the principal's conduct and failure to disown the agent's actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the subsequent signing of a plaint by a plaintiff cure the defect of an unsigned plaint filed earlier?
  • Can inter-parties judgments from previous litigation be admitted in evidence in a subsequent suit?
  • Does a principal's failure to disown an agent's actions during negotiations constitute implied ratification of the agent's authority?
  • Should procedural rules regarding the signing and verification of plaints be construed strictly or liberally?
  Read full judgment →
• THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, UNITED TEXTILE MILLS, FAZALABAD, MULTAN vs RAB1978 PLC 38 · Labour Court · 1975-04-04Read full judgment →
• THE ANJMAN ARAI MUZARAN LTD. vs BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE Ann 81978 PLD Lahore 489 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-04Read full judgment →
• THE ANJMAN ARAI MUZARAN LTD. vs BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE AND 8 Other1978 PLD Lahore 489 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-03Read full judgment →
• THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs KHALAS KHAN ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1368 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
• TELEPHONE OPERATORS UNION (TRUNKS) REGD., LAHORE vs LAHORE1978 PLC 19 · Labour Court · 1975-05-08Read full judgment →
• TEE STATE THROUGH ADVOCATEGENERAL SIND AND EXOFFICIO PUBLIC1978 P Cr. L J 171 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• TAUHEED-UN-NISA vs CHIEF SETTLEMENTCOMMISSIONER, BALUCHISTAN AND ANOTHERPLD 1978 Quetta74 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• TASNEEM-UR-REHMAN vs RESIDENT ENGINEER, GAS TURBINE POWER1978 PLC 101 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-06-20Read full judgment →
• TALIB AND 2 OTHERSConvict vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 102 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-20Read full judgment →
• TALIB AND 2 Other vs TBE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 102 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-20Read full judgment →
• TAJ MUHAMMAD AND Another vs HAJI HAKIM KHAN AND Other1978 SCMR 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• TAJ DIN vs JUMMA AND 6 OTHERS1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 131 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-05-30Read full judgment →
• TAHIRA BEGUM vs THE STATEPLD 1978 Rev. 77 Punjab) · Board of Revenue · 1976-04-23Read full judgment →
• TAHIR HUSSAIN vs GHULAM FARUQUE AND 7 Other1978 PLD Karachi 182 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-16
  Letters Patent Appealexchange of propertypart performancetransfer of propertyevacuee propertysuit for possessionlicence
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal arises from a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the respondents against the appellant regarding a plot of land. The core legal questions involved whether the transaction between the parties constituted an exchange of property under section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, whether the appellant could claim protection of part performance under section 53-A of the same Act, and whether his occupation could be defended as an irrevocable licence under section 60 of the Easements Act 1882. The Sindh High Court held that the transaction did not amount to an exchange since there was no mutual transfer of ownership, that section 53-A was inapplicable as there was no written contract satisfying its requirements, and that the plea of irrevocable licence could not be raised for the first time in appeal without an underlying factual basis or issue. The court affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge decreeing the suit for possession, while permitting the appellant to remove his structures, and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the surrender of tenancy rights in exchange for the ownership of another plot satisfy the definition of 'exchange' under section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Can correspondence addressed to third parties or government departments serve as a written contract or agreement for the purposes of invoking the doctrine of part performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Is a plea of irrevocable licence under section 60 of the Easements Act 1882 permissible for the first time in an appellate court when no specific issue was framed or evidence led thereon at the trial stage?
  • Can a plaintiff maintain a suit for possession on the basis of title after abandoning an alternative plea of landlord-tenant relationship?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed, MUHAMMAD JAFFAR KHAN LAGHARI vs THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 76 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-19Read full judgment →
• Syed ZAKIR ALI vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN AND OTHERS1978 PLC 490 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-01-18Read full judgment →
• Syed YOUSUF AND Another vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other1978 SCMR 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-13
  special leave to appealdismissal for non-prosecutionrestoration of petitionprocedural compliancereview of court orderwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the restoration of a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioners had filed a single petition challenging a common judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan which disposed of two cross-writ petitions. The Supreme Court office had initially objected, requiring two separate petitions. The petitioners, rather than contesting this, sought and were granted one month's time to comply, with the condition that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of the existing petition. Having failed to comply within the stipulated time, the petition stood dismissed. The petitioners subsequently sought restoration, arguing that a single petition was legally sufficient. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners had effectively conceded to the office's objection by requesting time to comply, and the subsequent dismissal order had become final. The Court ruled that the application for restoration was, in effect, a belated and meritless attempt to review the earlier order, which had already come into operation. Consequently, the application for restoration was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party seek restoration of a petition dismissed for non-prosecution after failing to comply with a conditional order of the Court?
  • Is a request for restoration of a dismissed petition considered a review of the original dismissal order?
  • Does a party's failure to contest a procedural objection at the time it is raised preclude them from challenging its validity in a subsequent restoration application?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed YAKUB SHAH- vs THE STATE1978 PLD Quetta 158 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-11-07
  bail bond forfeituresurety liabilityshow-cause noticecriminal procedurepenal provision interpretationmagistrate powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This Revision Application challenges a Magistrate's order forfeiting a bail bond and directing the surety to pay the penalty without first issuing a show-cause notice. The core legal question is whether, under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a Court can order a surety to pay the penalty immediately upon bond forfeiture, or if it must first provide the surety an opportunity to either pay or show cause against the forfeiture. The Court held that the Magistrate erred by failing to issue the requisite notice. The ratio is that before a Court can enforce the payment of a penalty or proceed to attachment, it must provide the surety with a notice offering the alternative to either pay the penalty or show cause against it. The Court emphasized that while bond forfeiture may occur upon an accused's default, the imposition of a penalty requires the Court to be satisfied that the default was not justified, a determination that necessitates an inquiry following a show-cause notice to the surety.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate have the authority to order a surety to pay a forfeited bond amount without first issuing a notice to show cause?
  • Must a Court provide a surety the alternative to either pay the penalty or show cause against the forfeiture of a bond?
  • Is the satisfaction of a Court regarding the lack of sufficient cause for a default a prerequisite for ordering the attachment of a surety's property?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed WEEDHAL SHAH AND 8 Other vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND Alsoraar1978 PLD Karachi 464 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-18
  ouster of jurisdictioncivil court jurisdictionpublic propertyencroachment removalabatement of suitsexclusive jurisdictionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a civil suit filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding a large tract of land, which was subsequently dismissed by the lower courts following the enactment of the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachments) Act, 1975, on the ground of abatement and exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the ouster of civil court jurisdiction and abatement of suits under sections 11 and 13 of the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachments) Act, 1975, applies universally to all ownership disputes or is restricted strictly to disputes arising out of proceedings initiated under the Act for the removal of encroachments. The court held that the ouster of civil court jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal are not absolute, but apply only when a dispute regarding whether a property is public property arises in relation to proceedings contemplated by the Act. The key principle laid down is that ouster clauses in statutes must be strictly construed, and the bar on civil court jurisdiction regarding public property disputes is limited exclusively to matters connected with proceedings undertaken for the removal of encroachments under the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the bar on civil court jurisdiction under section 11 of the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachments) Act, 1975, applies to independent civil suits regarding property ownership?
  • Does the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 13 of the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachments) Act, 1975, extend to disputes not arising out of proceedings contemplated by the Act?
  • Whether suits pending before civil courts automatically abate under section 11 of the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachments) Act, 1975, irrespective of the nature of the dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed WAJIHUL HUSSAIN ZAIDI vs PROVINCE OP PUNJAB AND OTHERS1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 8 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1977-07-25Read full judgment →
• Syed UMAID ALI SHAH vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Quetta 185 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-03-21Read full judgment →
• Syed SHAFIUDDIN vs ABDUL HAKIM KHAN1978 PLD Karachi 149 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-01
  default in rentsecurity deposittenancy agreementillegal premiumejectmentrent restrictionexercise of discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from ejectment proceedings initiated by a landlord against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground of default in rent payment and violation of the tenancy agreement. The core legal questions involved whether a security deposit specified in the agreement could be treated as advance rent to negate default, whether the deposit constituted an illegal premium under section 7 of the Ordinance rendering the contract void under section 23 of the Contract Act 1872, and whether a technical default warranted the exercise of judicial discretion in favour of the tenant. The Sindh High Court held that the sum deposited was clearly designated as security for performance of covenants rather than advance rent, that a receipt cannot alter the unambiguous terms of a written contract, and that the tenant failed to plead or prove that the amount was an illegal premium. The court further held that subsequent rent payments cannot wash out an established default and dismissed the appeal, laying down that security deposits serving as covenant guarantees do not offset accrued rent unless explicitly agreed as advance rent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a security deposit specified in a tenancy agreement can be treated as advance rent to offset defaults in rent payments?
  • Does a rent receipt describing a deposit as advance rent override the unambiguous terms of a written tenancy agreement designating it as security?
  • Whether a security deposit paid under a tenancy agreement constitutes an illegal premium under section 7 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 rendering the agreement void?
  • Can subsequent payment of rent through money order during the pendency of rent proceedings wash out a prior established default?
  • Whether a tenant can be permitted to produce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to fill lacunae left during the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed RAFIQUE MUHAMMAD SHAH AND 2 Others vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 80 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-22Read full judgment →
• Syed MUSHTAQUE HUSSAIN SHAH vs RIAZ MUHAMMAD HAZARVI AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 612 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-04
  rejection of plaintimplied bar of jurisdictiontrade union registrationspecial statuteexclusive jurisdictioninjunction against public duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application challenges an appellate judgment that reversed a trial court order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether general civil courts possess jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaration and injunction seeking to restrain the registration or cancel the status of a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the appellate court's judgment, and held the suit barred. The Court established that where a special statute creates a right or liability not existing at common law and prescribes a specific forum and procedure for its enforcement or adjudication, such right or liability must be pursued exclusively through the statutory machinery, thereby impliedly excluding the jurisdiction of general civil courts. Additionally, under Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act 1877, no injunction can be issued to interfere with the Registrar of Trade Unions in performing statutory public duties regarding union registration.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding rights and liabilities created exclusively by the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Where a special statute creates a right and provides a specific remedy before a special tribunal, is the jurisdiction of general civil courts impliedly barred?
  • Can an injunction be granted under the Specific Relief Act 1877 to restrain the Registrar of Trade Unions from performing statutory duties of union registration?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD TAQI SHAH vs CONTROLLER OFESTATE DUTY AND 10 Other1978 PLD Lahore 330 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-02Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD TAQI SHAH vs CONTROLLER OF ESTATE Duty AND 10 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 330 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-02Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD ABBAS SHAH vs CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, WEST1978 PLD Lahore 380 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-05Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MESSRS CHAS A. MENDOZA Accused1978 P Cr. L J 134 · Drug Court · 1977-09-17Read full judgment →
• Syed KHALILUR REHMAN vs THE STATE1978 PLC 586 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-01-23Read full judgment →
• Syed KAUSAR ALI SHAH vs MEMBER, ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 5 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-20Read full judgment →
• Syed KAUSAR ALI SHAH vs MEMBER, ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN AND 3 Other1978 PLD Lahore 5 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-20Read full judgment →
• Syed INAYAT ALI SHAH vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB1978 PLD Lahore 859 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-28
  rejection of plainttaccavi loanarrears of land revenuecoercive recoverysubstantial justiceamendment of pleadingscivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the rejection of his plaint in a suit seeking a declaration and injunction against coercive recovery of a taccavi loan as arrears of land revenue. The trial and appellate courts rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing vagueness regarding the amount claimed and failure to deposit the disputed sum. The High Court accepted the revision petition, setting aside the lower courts' orders. The Court held that the rejection of a plaint for vagueness is improper; the correct procedural remedy is to allow the plaintiff to amend the pleadings. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967, authorities must determine the existence and amount of an arrear before initiating coercive recovery proceedings, as a prerequisite for "substantial justice." The Court clarified that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 does not preclude a fresh suit under Rule 13. The case was remanded to the trial court to allow for the amendment of the plaint and to examine the legality of the recovery proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 preclude the plaintiff from filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action?
  • Is the rejection of a plaint for vagueness the appropriate legal remedy, or should the court allow for the amendment of pleadings?
  • Must an authority determine the existence and amount of an arrear before initiating coercive recovery proceedings under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed IMAM MEHDI SHAH vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, KARACHI AND 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 62 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-15Read full judgment →
• Syed GRULAM ALI SHAH vs COMMISSIONER, HYYDERABAD DIVISION AND 41978 P Cr. L 1592 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed GHULAM ALI SHAH vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 168 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-16Read full judgment →
• Syed GHULAM ALI SHAH vs NAZAR MUHAMMAD AND 5 OTHERS Opponents1978 P Cr. L J 759 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-21Read full judgment →
• Syed GHULAM ALI SHAH vs COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD DIVISION AND 41978 P Cr. L J 762 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed ASHIQ HUSSAIN SHAH vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1978 PLC 257 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-10-03Read full judgment →
• Syed ASGHAR ALI SHAH vs CHIEF SECRETARY, S&GAD, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1978 PLC [C. S. TA 77 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1977-11-29Read full judgment →
• Syed ANWAR SHAH vs LAHORE OMNIBUS SERVICE1978 PLC 386 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-10-21Read full judgment →
• Syed AMIR HUSSAIN GILLANI vs THE STATE AND 4 OTHERS1978 P Cr. L J 307 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-06Read full judgment →
• Syed AMANULLAH vs ADDITIONAL CITY MAGISTRATE No. 2, EAST, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 934 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-09Read full judgment →
• Syed ALI HASAN RIZVI vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND Other1978 SCMR 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-12
  service tribunallimitationcondonation of delayabatement of suitarrears of salaryjudicial discretionservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former police officer, sought leave to appeal against an order of the Sind Services Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal regarding arrears of salary as time-barred. Following the abatement of his civil suit due to the enactment of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and Article 212 of the Constitution, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in Masud Ahmad v. Pakistan, held the appeal time-barred. The petitioner argued that the delay should have been condoned under Section 6-A of the Sind Services Tribunal Act, 1973, and cited Syed Faiz Ali Shah v. Chief Administrator of Auqaf Lahore to support his claim. The Supreme Court held that the question of condoning delay is a matter of fact within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It found that the Tribunal had not exercised its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously. Furthermore, the Court distinguished the cited authority, noting that the petitioner had been given a full opportunity to be heard on his application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the question of condoning delay in filing an appeal before a Service Tribunal a question of fact within the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction?
  • Can a party claim that a delay in filing an appeal should be condoned based on the fact that the appeal was initially admitted without objection?
  • Does the principle in Syed Faiz Ali Shah v. Chief Administrator of Auqaf Lahore apply where a party has been given a full opportunity to be heard on an application for condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed ALAMDAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs ABDUL BASEER QURESHI AND 2 Other1978 PLD Supreme Court 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-17
  double jeopardydouble prosecutionautrefois acquitautrefois convictsuspension of fundamental rightstransfer of caseSpecial Military Courtpolice torture
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition challenging an Additional Sessions Judge's order transferring a police torture and murder case from a Magistrate to the Sessions Court. The petitioner contended that undergoing trial across different forums—first before a Special Military Court where trial ended without judgment upon the lifting of Martial Law, then before a Magistrate, and subsequently before the Sessions Court—violated the constitutional guarantee against double prosecution under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It held that Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter I, Part II of the Constitution stood suspended pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order 1977. On the merits, the Court held that 'prosecution' under Article 13 implies pursuing proceedings to final judgment. Since neither the military court nor the magisterial proceedings culminated in a final judgment of acquittal or conviction, transferring the case to the Sessions Court did not constitute a second prosecution or violate the principle of double jeopardy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the enforcement of fundamental rights under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 remains competent during the suspension period under the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order 1977?
  • What constitutes a 'prosecution' for the purpose of the protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the transfer of an unfinished criminal trial from one forum to another without a final judgment of acquittal or conviction violate the protection against double prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed AFTAB EJAZ vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 361 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-09
  contempt of courtquantum of sentencesuperior command defenseunconditional apologyextenuating circumstancesviolation of bail orderpolice officers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves inter-court appeals filed by four police officers against their conviction and sentences under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, for arresting a detenu in wilful defiance of an interim bail order passed by the High Court. The core legal question addressed by the court pertained to the quantum of sentence and whether the pleas of obeying superior commands or acting without personal malice could constitute extenuating circumstances to mitigate the punishment. The Lahore High Court held that neither the command of superiors nor good intentions can provide a defense for flouting a court order, as judicial compliance is a matter of strict liability. However, considering mitigating factors such as the appellants' consistent truthfulness, lack of prior deliberation, and their unconditional apology, the court maintained the conviction but reduced the substantive sentences of imprisonment to the period already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Does the command of a superior officer provide a valid defense for police officers who violate a court's bail order?
  • Can the pleas of good intention and superior command be considered as extenuating circumstances to mitigate the sentence in contempt proceedings?
  • Whether an unconditional apology combined with a candid confession of fault warrants a reduction in the sentence for contempt of court?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed ABRAR HUSSAIN vs CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD1978 PLD Lahore 465 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed ABRAR HUSSAIN vs CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL AND COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD1978 PLD Lahore 465 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sycd GHULAM ALI SHAH vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 596 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-21Read full judgment →
• SURAJ GHEE INDUSTRIES vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1978 PLC 163 · Labour Court · 1976-01-09Read full judgment →
• SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, LAHORE AND Another vs AKHTAR HUSSAIN BHUTTA1978 PLD Supreme Court 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-30
  quashing of criminal proceedingsDrugs Actcorporate liabilityoffences by companiesmanaging director liabilitysubstandard drugscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court quashing criminal proceedings against the respondent, the Managing Director of a private limited company, under section 18 read with section 27 of the Drugs Act, 1940, following the seizure of a substandard drug sample manufactured by the company. The core legal question concerned the validity of the prosecution and the interpretation of liability under the Drugs Act, 1940, particularly regarding corporate offences and the liability of company officers. The Supreme Court held that since the company itself was the manufacturer and a separate legal entity, and no proceedings were drawn up against the company nor was any evidence adduced to show that the respondent acted as a distributor or that the corporate offence was committed with his knowledge and consent under section 38 of the Drugs Act, the allegations in the challan did not disclose any offence against the respondent. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeal, laying down that a director or officer of a company cannot be prosecuted under the Drugs Act, 1940, without fulfilling the foundational requirements of establishing the company's guilt and proving that the offence was committed with the officer's knowledge and consent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the criminal proceedings against a company's director can continue under the Drugs Act, 1940, when the company itself has not been prosecuted as the principal accused?
  • Can an officer of a company be held liable for a drug manufacturing offence under the Drugs Act, 1940, without proof that the offence was committed with his knowledge and consent?
  • When is the High Court justified in quashing criminal proceedings under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• SUNSHINE COTTON MILLS LTD., SHEIKUPURA vs ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPAL1978 PLD Lahore 263 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-13Read full judgment →
• SUNGREEN & CO. LTD., KARACHI (With The Powers Of The Custodian Of Evacuee Property) vs NOMAN BAI AND 4 Other1978 PLD Karachi 100 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-07
  evacuee propertyrepeal of lawspending proceedingsjurisdictioncustodian of evacuee propertyrecovery of rentgeneral clauses act
  Summary & questions settled

  This miscellaneous application raised the question of the maintainability of proceedings before an officer appointed under section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, seeking orders for the deposit and recovery of rent in respect of property previously adjudicated upon by the Custodian. The core legal question was whether fresh or incidental applications concerning rent recovery could be entertained by the designated officer after the repeal of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, when no such proceedings were pending immediately before the repeal. The Sindh High Court held that the designated officer lacks jurisdiction to entertain fresh or incidental applications for rent assessment and recovery, as section 2(2) of the Repealing Act restricts jurisdiction strictly to proceedings that were actually pending immediately before the repeal or cases remanded by superior courts. The key principle laid down is that upon the repeal of evacuee property laws, statutory offices cease to exist, and the jurisdiction of officers appointed under the repealing legislation is strictly confined to pending proceedings or specific remands, excluding fresh or collateral applications regarding residual matters like rent recovery which fall under the purview of the Provincial Government and Board of Revenue.

  Questions settled

  • Does an officer appointed under section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 have jurisdiction to entertain fresh applications filed after the repeal?
  • Can the recovery of rent for evacuee property be treated as a consequential proceeding to a finally disposed of revision by the Custodian?
  • Does section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserve the right to initiate fresh remedies under a repealed enactment when the repealing statute contains contrary provisions?
  • What is the extent of jurisdiction of officers notified by the Provincial Government under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• SULTAN MUMARAZ AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 902 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-08Read full judgment →
• SULTAN ETC. vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 800 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-14Read full judgment →
• SULTAN BAHADUR KHAN vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF N.-W. F. P.1978 PLC (C. S. T.) 118 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1977-10-18Read full judgment →
• SULTAN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 194 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-14Read full judgment →
• SULEMAN AND 24 Other vs PROVINCE OF SIND, KARACHI ARID Another1978 PLD Karachi 199 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-25Read full judgment →
• Sufi MUHAMMAD DIN vs Mst. TAHIRA TASNIM AND 6 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1410 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-24Read full judgment →
• Sufi MUHAMMAD DIN vs Mst. TAHIRA TASNIM AND 6 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1410 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-24Read full judgment →
• SUB. MAJOR FAZAL ELLAHI vs THE STATE1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 80 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1976-05-29Read full judgment →
• SUAHBAZ TUFAIL vs TIM STATE1978 PLD Lahore 725 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-04Read full judgment →
• STATE vs ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO AND OTHERSAccused1978 PLD Lahore 523 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-18Read full judgment →
• STATE vs NASEER AHMEDAccused1978 P Cr. L J 92 · Drug Court · 1977-07-30Read full judgment →
• STATE vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM Accused1978 P Cr. L J 87 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-26Read full judgment →
• STATE vs Mst. RAZIA BEGUM1978 PLD Rev. 1 · Board of Revenue · 1977-03-08Read full judgment →