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.

• Mian MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ SHAFI vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 66 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-02Read full judgment →
• Mian MANZAR BASHIR AND Other vs M. A. ASGHAR & Co.1978 PLD SC 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-27
  rent restrictionejectmentex parte orderright of appealinterlocutory orderappellate authorityrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order dismissing their second appeal regarding an ejectment application. The core legal questions were whether an order by a Rent Controller setting aside an ex parte ejectment order is appealable, and whether a direct appeal lies to the High Court under Section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The Supreme Court held that an order setting aside an ex parte ejectment order is merely interlocutory, as it does not finally decide the controversy, and is therefore not appealable. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Section 15(4) does not authorize a direct appeal to the High Court, as the appellate authority is now statutorily designated under Section 15(1). The Court affirmed that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be assumed; only orders that embrace the whole gamut of the dispute are appealable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, confirming that the lower courts correctly found the appeal incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order by a Rent Controller setting aside an ex parte ejectment order appealable?
  • Does Section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 provide for a direct appeal to the High Court?
  • What is the test for determining whether an order made by a Rent Controller is appealable?
  Read full judgment →
• MIAN KHAN AND ANOTHER. vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 655 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-28Read full judgment →
• Mi ALKA HUSSAIN vs UNIVERSITY OF PANJAB ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1357 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-21Read full judgment →
• MESSRS ZEENAT SHIRT FACTORY vs WALI MUHAMMAD1978 PLC 429 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-07-26Read full judgment →
• MESSRS ZAKARIA BROS., KARACHI vs MESSRS HASHWANI SALES & SERVICE S.1978 PLD Karachi 581 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-08Read full judgment →
• MESSRS VALIKA TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs CHAIRMAN, IST SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 952 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
• MESSRS UNISPIN LTD , LAHORE vs MUZZAFFAR ALI1978 PLC 198 · Labour Court · 1976-04-01Read full judgment →
• MESSRS UMER KHAN vs CHIEF ENGINEER, ROADS & BUILDINGS1978 PLD Karachi 658 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-03Read full judgment →
• MESSRS UMAR YAR LIMITED SUNRISE DOUBLING vs WORKERS UNION1978 PLC 210 · Labour Court · 1976-03-30Read full judgment →
• MESSRS TRIO CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI vs AMEERULLAH AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLC 76 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-06Read full judgment →
• MESSRS TASNEEM MECHANICAL WORKS vs PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL1978 PLD Lahore 805 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs TASNEEM MECHANICAL WORKS vs PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL1978 PLD Lahore 805 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-05Read full judgment →
• MESSRS TANWEER WEAVING FACTORY vs MOHAMMAD IQBAL1978 PLC 448 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-03-13Read full judgment →
• MESSRS TANWEER TEXTILE MILLS LTD., SANGHAR vs GHULAM SARWAR AND 21978 PLD Karachi 842 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-31Read full judgment →
• MESSRS STAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs LAL MUHAMMAD1978 PLC 311 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-08-14Read full judgment →
• MESSRS STANDARD PRINTING Presss vs SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY1978 PLD Karachi 945 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-10
  social securitystatutory tribunalappellate jurisdictionvires of notificationconstitutional jurisdictionequal protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 64 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 arose from a challenge to a Gazette Notification applying the Ordinance to the appellant's printing press establishment. The appellant contended that the notification was discriminatory under Article 25 of the Constitution and ultra vires Section 1(3) of the Ordinance, arguing that the law could only be applied to entire classes of establishments rather than individual units. The respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the Social Security Court to determine the vires of the notification. The High Court held that statutory tribunals of limited jurisdiction, such as the Social Security Institution and the Social Security Court, must function strictly within their allotted statutory spheres and lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate constitutional questions or the validity of notifications. Since an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, the High Court's appellate jurisdiction under Section 64 of the Ordinance is subject to the same limitations. Consequently, the constitutional and vires challenges could not be decided in this appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statutory tribunal of limited jurisdiction have the power to adjudicate the constitutional validity or vires of a government notification?
  • Is the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under a special statute limited by the same jurisdictional boundaries that govern the original statutory forum?
  • Does the word 'classes' in Section 1(3) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 restrict the government from applying the Ordinance to individual establishments?
  Read full judgment →
• MESSRS SOUVENIR TOBACCO Co. LTD., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES UNION1978 PLC 434 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-11-20Read full judgment →
• MESSRS SHAMS TEXTILE MILLS LTD., CHINIOT vs PEOPLE'S UNION1978 PLC 401 · Labour Court · 1977-07-16Read full judgment →
• MESSRS SHABNUM SILK MILLS, KARACHI vs KHUSHI MOHAMMAD1978 PLC 397 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-09-28Read full judgment →
• MESSRS SAMINA LTD., KARACHI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY Of DEFENCE, ISLAMABAD1978 PLD Karachi 818 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-12Read full judgment →
• MESSRS SALEEM & COMPANY vs WORKERS UNION AID ANOTHER1978 PLC 85 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-06-05Read full judgment →
• MESSRS SABINA LTD. (PARIS MILLS), KARACHI vs MOHAMMAD RAHIM AND 231978 PLC 118 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-19Read full judgment →
• MESSRS RICE EXPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI vs ABDUL HAKIM AND 101978 PLC 352 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-08-30Read full judgment →
• MESSRS RAVI RAYON LTD. vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND 21978 PLD Lahore 387 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-06Read full judgment →
• MESSRS PROGRESSIVE RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD., KARACHI vs NAFISA ABDUL1978 PLC 393 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-09-03Read full judgment →
• MESSRS PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LTD. vs A. T. CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS1978 PLC 497 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-04-09Read full judgment →
• MESSRS PIONEER STEEL MILLS LTD. vs BABAR ALI1978 PLC 449 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-07-24Read full judgment →
• MESSRS PAN ASIAN TRADING CORPORATION, LAHORE vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 382 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-31Read full judgment →
• MESSRS PAKISTAN TOBACCO Co. LTD., KARACHI vs ABDUL MAJID1978 PLC 270 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-07-31Read full judgment →
• MESSRS PAKISTAN TOBACCO Co. LTD. vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1978 PLC 363 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-08-05Read full judgment →
• MESSRS PAKISTAN PAPER CORPORATION MN KARACHI-- Petitioner vs THE1978 PLD Karachi 437 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-31Read full judgment →
• MESSRS PAKISTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI vs THE PROVINCIAL1978 PLC 562 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-31Read full judgment →
• MESSRS PAKISTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD. vs A. AZIZ SULAIMAN KEDVAVI1978 PLC 579 · Labour Court · 1975-10-29Read full judgment →
• MESSRS PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION, KARACHI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), Karachi1978 PLD Karachi 441 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-13Read full judgment →
• MESSRS PACKAGES LTD. LAHORE vs KHALID MUKHTAR PIRZADA1978 PLC 313 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-12-30Read full judgment →
• MESSRS OIL & GAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs MESSRS KARACHI1978 SCMR 278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-02
  arbitration agreementarbitrator appointmentcontractual interpretationarbitral awarddesignation of arbitratorarbitration act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute arising from a construction contract between Messrs Oil & Gas Development Corporation and Messrs Karachi Builders, which contained an arbitration clause designating the 'Production Manager' of the Corporation as the arbitrator. Following a contractual dispute, the contractor sought the appointment of an independent arbitrator, but the High Court directed the Production Manager to conduct the proceedings. Subsequently, the Deputy Chief Engineer, who was also acting as the Production Manager, conducted the arbitration and issued an award. The contractor challenged the award, arguing that the Deputy Chief Engineer lacked the authority to act as the designated arbitrator. The High Court set aside the award, holding that the parties intended for the specific office of the Production Manager to arbitrate, not an officer merely performing those duties in addition to their own. The Supreme Court dismissed the Corporation's petition for leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's finding that the arbitration clause required the designated officer to act, and no other official could substitute for that specific role.

  Questions settled

  • Can an officer performing the duties of a designated arbitrator in an additional capacity validly act as the arbitrator under an arbitration agreement?
  • Does an arbitration award become invalid if the person issuing it does not hold the specific designation required by the arbitration clause?
  • Is a court justified in setting aside an arbitration award where the arbitrator lacked the requisite authority defined by the contract?
  Read full judgment →
• MESSRS NATIONAL EMBROIDERY MILLS LTD. vs PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL1978 PLD Lahore 955 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-10
  attendance allowancewagessocial security contributionsettlementCollective Bargaining Agentex gratia paymentindustrial dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal challenged an order of the Punjab Social Security Court holding that an 'attendance allowance' paid by the appellant-company to its employees constituted 'wages' under Section 2(30) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965, thereby attracting statutory contributions under Section 23 of the Ordinance. The appellant argued that the allowance was an ex gratia incentive paid to workers with regular monthly attendance and not part of the contract of service. The High Court analyzed the definition of wages, statutory incentive schemes under Section 10-A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, and the binding nature of settlements under Sections 39 and 40 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an attendance allowance paid pursuant to a settlement—or continued by implied agreement after its term—relates to services rendered and serves as additional wages for regular work, rendering it subject to social security contributions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an attendance allowance paid to workers pursuant to a settlement constitutes wages under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
  • Does a settlement under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 continue to bind the parties after the expiry of one year if no notice of termination is given in writing?
  • Can payments made under an implied contractual extension of a settlement be considered voluntary or ex gratia payments for the purpose of social security contribution?
  Read full judgment →
• MIRZA KHAN vs ALLAH DIYAYA1978 SCMR 91 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-07
  evictiontentative rent defaultdefinition of buildinghotel premisesstriking off defencesupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant who ran a hotel in the demised premises. The Rent Controller struck off the petitioner's defence for twice defaulting on the deposit of tentative rent and ordered eviction, which was upheld in appeal by the District Court and subsequently by the High Court. In the Supreme Court, the petitioner raised contentions regarding the property being evacuee property, that a building let for running a hotel falls outside the definition of 'building' under the rent restriction law, and that the default in depositing rent was merely inadvertent rather than wilful. The Supreme Court held that the property was not evacuee, that premises let for running a hotel fall within the definition of a building under the relevant rent ordinance, and that the concurrent findings regarding default in rent deposit were supported by evidence. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, with a brief extension of time granted to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a building let for the purpose of running a hotel falls within the definition of a building under Section 2(a) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959?
  • Does default in the deposit of tentative rent warrant the striking off of a tenant's defence under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• MESSRS MUHAMMAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs AHMAD AND 37 OTHERS1978 PLC 512 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-01-22Read full judgment →
• MESSRS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL & Co. LTD. vs KARACHI PORT TRUST, KARACHIPLD 1978 Karachi E92 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-28Read full judgment →
• MESSRS MERCANTILE FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE Co., OF PAKISTAN LTD..1978 PLD Karachi 273 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-14
  foreign jurisdiction clausebill of ladingstay of proceedingsarbitration agreementshort landing of cargoburden of proofcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for recovery of damages for short-landed cargo filed against a foreign shipping company and its local agents. The core legal question was whether the court should stay the proceedings in favor of a foreign jurisdiction clause contained in the Bill of Lading, which mandated that disputes be resolved in the carrier's principal place of business. The court held that it possessed jurisdiction to entertain the suit and dismissed the application for a stay. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court established that foreign jurisdiction clauses do not automatically oust municipal court jurisdiction. The burden of proof lies upon the party seeking to enforce such a clause to demonstrate that it is just and equitable to bind the parties to that forum. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the defendants had waived their right to seek a stay by filing a written statement prior to making the application, violating the procedural requirements of the Arbitration Act 1940. Consequently, the court proceeded with the suit, prioritizing the convenience of parties and witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Does a foreign jurisdiction clause in a Bill of Lading automatically oust the jurisdiction of municipal courts?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to justify staying proceedings in favor of a foreign jurisdiction clause?
  • Does the filing of a written statement before applying for a stay of proceedings preclude a defendant from invoking an arbitration clause under the Arbitration Act 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• MESSRS M. AFZAL & SONS AND 2 OTHERS vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD THROUGH SECRETARY, FINANCE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 468 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-03Read full judgment →
• MESSRS M. AFZAL & SONS AND 2 Other vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD THROUGH SECRETARY, FINANCE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 468 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-03Read full judgment →
• MESSRS LAMICA CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI vs MAJEEDULLAH AND ANOTHBR1978 PLC 479 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-04-26Read full judgment →
• MESSRS KHWAJA AUTO CARS LTD., KARACHI vs SAMIULLAH KHAN1978 PLC 424 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-07-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs KARACHI INDUSTRIAL AND TEXTILE MILLS, KARACHI AND Another vs SETTET EMENT COMMISSIONER (INDUSTRIES), LAHORE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 328 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MESSRS JAFFER BROS. LTD. vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 585 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10
  arbitration awarderror of law on the face of the awarddoctrine of frustrationcontract Actdemurragesale of goodsletters patent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two cross Letters Patent Appeals arising from a single judgment of a learned Single Judge on the Original Side, which had modified an arbitration award concerning a dispute over a cement supply contract. The core legal questions involved whether an arbitrator can award extra expenses due to unexpected labor wage increases under the doctrine of frustration or implied terms, whether an error of law on the face of the award vitiates it, and whether a buyer is liable for care and custody charges when failing to take timely delivery. The court held that an uncontemplated turn of events does not frustrate a contract unless performance becomes impossible, and courts cannot rewrite contracts on notions of fairness. Furthermore, an arbitrator commits an error of law by misinterpreting contract terms or granting claims without establishing breach of contract. The court laid down that fixed-price contracts remain binding despite increased operational costs, that general references to arbitration can be reviewed for errors of law apparent from the reasons given, and that buyers are liable for reasonable custody charges under the Sale of Goods Act when failing to take delivery.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexpected rise in operational costs or wages frustrate an executory contract under section 56 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Can an arbitrator qualify the express terms of a contract and award extra expenses based on notions of fairness and equity?
  • What constitutes an error of law on the face of an arbitration award?
  • Is a buyer liable to pay reasonable charges for the care and custody of goods under the Sale of Goods Act 1930 if they fail to take delivery within a reasonable time?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs ISLAM Jewellerss vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI1978 PLD Lahore 890 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-18Read full judgment →
• MESSRS INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT vs NOT1978 PLD Karachi 673 · Sindh High Court · -
  income taxrevenue receiptcapital receipttaxable incomemanaging agencyshare transactionsmixed question of law and fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act 1922 arose from an assessment year where the assessee, a private limited company acting as a managing agent and financier, realized a net gain of Rs. 76,114 from the purchase and sale of shares. The Income-tax Officer treated this surplus as taxable revenue receipt, whereas the assessee contended it was a non-taxable capital gain resulting from the realization of investments. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the taxability, finding the transactions incidental to the assessee's business objects. The High Court of Sindh affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that whether a gain is capital or revenue is a mixed question of law and fact. The Court ruled that because the assessee's Memorandum of Association empowered it to act as a financier and capitalist, and because it purchased the shares using borrowed capital on a large scale, the transactions constituted a normal step in carrying on its business rather than a mere realization of capital investment. Consequently, the surplus was held to be a taxable revenue receipt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the determination of whether a profit is a capital gain or a revenue receipt constitutes a pure question of fact or a mixed question of law and fact?
  • Can the purchase and sale of shares by a company with financing powers under its Memorandum of Association be treated as a taxable business activity rather than a mere realization of capital investment?
  • Does the fact that shares were purchased using borrowed capital and sold to a sister concern at market rates prevent the transaction from being classified as an adventure in the nature of trade?
  Read full judgment →
• MESSRS INDUS JUTE MILLS LTD. THATTA vs AZAM1978 PLC 481 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-03-13Read full judgment →
• MESSRS HOTEL ROYAL CITY, KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD GULZAR1978 PLC 366 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-08-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs HARMANN PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES (REGD.), LAHORE vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OP HEALTH & POPULATION PLANNING (HEALTH DIVISION), ISLAMABAD AND 2 Other1978 PLD Lahore 445 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
• MESSRS HAKIMUDDIN HARMUSJI & SONS's vs MESSRS GHAFOOR TEXTILE MILLS1978 PLD Karachi 152 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-31
  arbitration agreementstay of arbitrationinterim injunctionvested rightfurnishing securityaward objections
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves consolidated proceedings arising from an application under section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940 challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement, and subsequent proceedings for filing an award. The core legal questions concern whether pending proceedings under section 33 challenging an arbitration agreement bar arbitration, whether an interim stay order affects the arbitrators' jurisdiction similarly to an injunction, and whether a party's failure to furnish security bars their objections under section 33 while prior substantive proceedings remain pending. The Sindh High Court held that while the defendants' failure to furnish security as ordered prevents the entertainment of their objections under section 30, it does not extinguish their previously vested substantive remedy under section 33 to challenge the validity of the arbitration agreement. The Court established that a statutory right to a legal remedy invoked prior to the award is a vested right that cannot be defeated merely by the subsequent passing of the award or procedural defaults in separate stages.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pending legal proceedings challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement under section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940 operate as a statutory bar under section 35 to ongoing arbitration proceedings?
  • What is the effect of a party's failure to furnish security on their ability to pursue objections against an arbitration award under the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Does the passing of an arbitration award extinguish a previously and lawfully invoked substantive remedy seeking a declaration that no arbitration agreement exists?
  • Whether the power to grant interim relief or stay proceedings is reasonably incidental or ancillary to the main statutory jurisdiction of a court?
  Read full judgment →
• MESSRS HAJI SULEMAN USMAN, KARACHI vs RAHMAT1978 PLC 383 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-09-20Read full judgment →
• MESSRS GULBERG TEXTILE MILLS vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (WEST), KARACHI1978 PLD Karachi 218 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-10Read full judgment →
• MESSRS GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs USMAN SHAH AND 21978 PLC 395 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-09-04Read full judgment →
• MESSRS GUL AHMAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs ZARDULLAH KHAN1978 PLC 419 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-05-08Read full judgment →
• MESSRS GHANI TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs ABDULLAH AND 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 857 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-10Read full judgment →
• MESSRS GENERAL CARRIERS LTD., KARACHI AND 2 Other vs KARACHI PORT1978 PLD Karachi 1041 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-22Read full judgment →
• MESSRS ESSO PAKISTAN FERTILIZER Co. LTD., DHARKI vs UMAR HAYAT1978 PLC 382 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-10-07Read full judgment →
• MESSRS ELECTRIC LAMP MANUFACTURERS OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI1978 PLD Karachi 972 · Sindh High Court · 1978-07-01Read full judgment →
• MESSRS DIAMOND ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL & MARINE1978 PLD Karachi 837 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-22
  admiralty jurisdictionmaritime lienship repairsnecessariesarrest of shipchange of ownershipAdmiralty Court Act 1861
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs filed an admiralty suit seeking recovery of costs for ship repairs and material supplied in 1956, asserting a maritime lien over the vessel. The vessel had subsequently been sold to a new owner. The core legal question was whether a claim for repairs and necessaries under the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, creates a maritime lien that attaches to the vessel regardless of changes in ownership. The Court held that the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court is governed by the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, as applied by the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890. Upon interpreting Sections 4 and 5 of the 1861 Act, the Court determined that these provisions do not confer a maritime lien for repairs or necessaries. Jurisdiction under these sections is contingent upon the ship being under arrest at the time of the suit, rather than an inherent lien that travels with the vessel. Consequently, the Court ruled that no maritime lien existed, and the claim could not be enforced against the new owner. The arrest order was discharged.

  Questions settled

  • Does a claim for ship repairs or necessaries create a maritime lien under the Admiralty Court Act, 1861?
  • Is the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court of Sindh limited to the provisions of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861?
  • Can a claim for ship repairs be enforced against a new owner of the vessel in the absence of a maritime lien?
  • Does the arrest of a ship under Section 4 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, constitute a maritime lien?
  Read full judgment →
• MESSRS DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS Co. LTD., LYALLPUR vs COMMISSIONER1978 PLD Lahore 374 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-04Read full judgment →
• MESSRS CRESCENT FILMS. LAHORE vs MHISRI SHAH NOOR FILMS LTD., LAHORE1978 PLD Lahore 721 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-27Read full judgment →
• MESSRS CENTRAL INSURANCE Co. LID., KARACHI vs MESSRS KHYBER TEXTILE1978 PLD Karachi 908 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-21Read full judgment →
• MESSRS CAPRI CINEMA, KARACHI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 229 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-20Read full judgment →
• MESSRS BRITISH INDIA ENGINEERING WORKS, KARACHI vs MESSRS GLOBE1978 PLD Karachi 375 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
• MESSRS BAWANI VOILIN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs THEEMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY1978 PLD Karachi 890 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-06
  wagessocial security contributionconveyance allowanceattendance allowanceefficiency allowancenatural justiceremuneration
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition before the High Court of Sindh challenged the inclusion of good attendance allowance, efficiency allowance, and conveyance allowance within the definition of 'wages' for determining contributions under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The petitioner argued that such allowances were not paid as a matter of course and thus fell outside section 2(30). The High Court dismissed the petition, interpreting the terms 'paid' and 'payable' in section 2(30) as having distinct meanings: 'payable' refers to remuneration owed as a legal obligation, whereas 'paid' additionally encompasses all actual payments made to a worker for rendition of services in connection with employment. The Court held that allowances paid for regular attendance and efficiency are covered as remuneration under the Ordinance, noting that the statutory definition explicitly excludes only four specific categories. The Court further ruled that determination of contribution based on data submitted by the employer satisfies section 22(3) as an admission, without violating the principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Do attendance, efficiency, and conveyance allowances fall within the definition of wages under Section 2(30) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
  • What is the distinction between the terms 'paid' and 'payable' in the definition of wages under Section 2(30) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
  • Can data submitted by an employer constitute sufficient evidence for assessing social security contribution under Section 22(3) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
  • Are principles of natural justice violated when an assessment of social security contribution is based on data provided by the employer itself?
  Read full judgment →
• MESSRS ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs PAKISTAN THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE RANGE, LAHORE AND 7 Other1978 PLD Supreme Court 151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-08
  alien enemyenemy propertycustodian of enemy propertylocus standiconstitutional petitiondefence of pakistan rulestrading with the enemy
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant company's writ petitions on the ground that being an 'alien enemy' residing in enemy territory, it lacked locus standi to seek relief against income tax assessment orders. The core legal questions involved whether an alien enemy can prosecute a constitutional petition during hostilities, whether the Custodian of Enemy Property had the exclusive authority to represent the company, and whether the Defence of Pakistan Rules and Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order override general procedural laws and constitutional remedies. The Supreme Court held that upon the vesting of an enemy firm's property in the Custodian of Enemy Property under the Defence of Pakistan Rules, the Custodian entirely supplanted the company, possessing extensive powers including the right to defend, compromise, and pay taxes out of the property. The Court concluded that the appellant company, being an alien enemy residing in enemy territory during wartime, was legally barred from maintaining independent actions or writ petitions, as its rights and representation were vested solely in the Custodian. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an alien enemy residing in enemy territory has the locus standi to independently institute or prosecute a writ petition in Pakistani courts during a state of war?
  • Does the appointment of the Custodian of Enemy Property and the vesting of enemy assets in him exclude the enemy firm from maintaining legal proceedings in its own name?
  • Do the provisions of the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance and the rules and orders framed thereunder override inconsistent provisions of general enactments and ordinary laws?
  • What are the statutory powers of the Custodian of Enemy Property regarding the management, defense, and settlement of liabilities and tax obligations of an enemy firm?
  Read full judgment →
• MESSRS ARAG INDUSTRIES LTD. (HABIB TEXTILE DIVISION) vs HASHMAT ALI1978 PLC 145 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-05Read full judgment →
• MESSRS ALI & ABDULAZIZ ALKADHI AND Another vs S. S. PHOENIX AND 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 855 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-28Read full judgment →
• MESSRS AHMAD INVESTMENTS LTD. vs SIND LABOUR COURT No. 4 AND 31978 PLC 567 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-21Read full judgment →
• MESSES AMEEJEB VALLEEJEB & SONS vs As. V. AZEEM AND 2 Otxhra S1978 PLD Karachi 467 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-24Read full judgment →
• MESSERS PAN ASIAN TRADING CORPORATION, LAHORE vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PEJNJAB THROUGH ITS SECBBTARY,1978 PLD Lahore 382 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• MESSERS DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs SOCIAL SECURITY1978 PLD Karachi 744 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-19
  social security contributiondefinition of wagesleave encashmentcanteen subsidyovertimeex gratia paymentmotor-cycle allowancewest pakistan employees social security ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  These miscellaneous appeals involve the interpretation of clause (30) of section 2 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, regarding whether various payments made to employees—such as leave encashment, festival holiday payments, sick and casual leave payments, motor-cycle allowances, amenities to labor, rewards, and canteen subsidies—fall within the definition of "wages" for the purpose of assessing social security contributions. The core legal questions concern the proper scope of "wages" under the Ordinance, whether certain allowances and ex gratia payments constitute wages, and the effect of statutory wage ceilings on contribution liability. The Sindh High Court held that leave encashment, festival holiday payments, and sick and casual leave payments constitute wages as they relate to periods of authorized leave or work done in lieu thereof, whereas true ex gratia payments, welfare expenses, and general canteen subsidies do not form part of wages. The Court laid down that payments not made under a contractual or statutory obligation, or those intended to defray special expenses tied to the nature of employment, are excluded from wages, and remanded the matters for re-assessment in light of statutory wage limits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether payments made for leave encashment fall within the definition of wages under section 2(30) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Does a subsidy provided by an employer for a employee canteen constitute wages for the purpose of calculating social security contributions?
  • Are ex gratia payments, rewards, and general labor amenities subject to social security contributions under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Whether conveyance and motor-cycle allowances paid to employees irrespective of the specific nature of their duties are excludable as special expenses under section 2(30) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  Read full judgment →
• Messers CALTEX OIL (PAKISTAN) LTD vs PROVINCE OF SINDG And 6 Other1978 PLD Karachi 958 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-16Read full judgment →
• MERAJ DIN vs Maulvi SULTAN Ere.1978 P Cr. L J 714 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-20Read full judgment →
• Mer ISLAM JEWELLERS vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI1978 PLD Lahore 890 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-18Read full judgment →
• Mer CRESCENT FILMS, LAHORE vs MESSRS SHAH NOOR FILMS LTD., LAHORE AND 8 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 721 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-27Read full judgment →
• MENGHAY KHAN AND OTHERS vs KARAM DIN AND OTHERSPLD 1978 Rev. 66 Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1978-04-05Read full judgment →
• MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION RAWALPINDI vs Sardar MUHAMMAD1978 SCMR 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-20
  Martial Law Regulation 115produce index unitsbeneficial ownershipFederal Land Commissionjudicial reviewfinding of facttractor ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning a claim for produce index units under Martial Law Regulation 115, 1972. The respondent, Sardar Muhammad Ashraf, claimed ownership of a tractor to justify his entitlement under paragraph 8(2) of the Regulation. The Federal Land Commission had disallowed the claim, relying solely on the fact that the tractor was registered in the name of a third party, the respondent's son. The High Court, however, overturned this decision, finding that the respondent and two others had jointly purchased the tractor, provided a power of attorney to the son for delivery, and mortgaged their land to secure the tractor's purchase price. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the Federal Land Commission's finding was based on a misconceived premise by focusing exclusively on registration while ignoring substantial evidence of beneficial ownership. The Court established that administrative findings of fact are not conclusive when they are reached by ignoring material evidence on record, thereby justifying judicial review.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Land Commission disregard material evidence of beneficial ownership in favor of mere registration records?
  • Is a finding of fact by the Federal Land Commission conclusive if it is based on a misconceived premise?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to review findings of fact by the Federal Land Commission when material evidence was ignored?
  Read full judgment →
• MEHRBAN vs THE STATE1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 96 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-04-09Read full judgment →
• MEHRAB SHAH vs MESSRS NATIONAL MOTORS LTD., KARACHI1978 PLC 385 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-09-19Read full judgment →
• MEHR KHAN AND WAHJUDDIN AND Another vs Mst. RAZIA BEGUM ETC. Mst.1978 SCMR 294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-15Read full judgment →
• MEHMOOD AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 731 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-23Read full judgment →
• MEHAR alias FAZAL MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 176 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-27
  post-arrest bailidentification paradecorroborationrecovery of weaponscriminal trialmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by three applicants facing trial for various offences, including murder and attempted murder, before the Sessions Judge, Larkana. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given that they were not named in the First Information Report (FIR) and the identification parade was conducted 18 days after the incident. The Court held that while the identification parade alone might be insufficient, the recovery of blood-stained hatchets from two of the applicants, corroborated by medical evidence of injuries consistent with such weapons, provided sufficient grounds to deny bail to those specific individuals. However, regarding the third applicant, from whom only a non-blood-stained lathi was recovered, the Court found his case distinguishable and granted him bail. The key principle laid down is that where identification evidence is potentially weak due to delay, the presence of incriminating physical evidence, such as blood-stained weapons linked to the injuries sustained by prosecution witnesses, serves as sufficient corroboration to disentitle an accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an identification parade conducted 18 days after the incident, in the absence of a description in the FIR, automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can the recovery of blood-stained weapons provide sufficient corroboration to deny bail even if the accused was not named in the FIR?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail if the only evidence against them is an identification parade conducted after a significant delay and no incriminating physical evidence is recovered?
  Read full judgment →
• MEDICAL-EDUCATIONAL UPLIFT FUND ASSOCIATION OF SEVENTH DAY1978 PLD Karachi 536 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-08
  charitable hospitalworkmancommercial establishmentindustrial establishmenttermination of servicesno-profit basis
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from the termination of an Assistant Business Manager's services by the petitioner, a registered charitable society running the Seventh Day Adventist Hospital on a no-profit basis. The respondent employee challenged his termination under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 before the Junior Labour Court, alleging violations of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. The Junior Labour Court dismissed the application, holding that the hospital was neither an industrial nor a commercial establishment. However, the Sindh Labour Court reversed this decision on appeal, relying on Indian case law. On revision, the High Court of Sindh held that to enforce rights guaranteed under the Standing Orders Ordinance 1968, the claimant must qualify as a 'workman' under that specific Ordinance, rather than the broader definition in the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The Court further ruled that a charitable hospital run on a no-profit basis does not fall within the definitions of 'industrial establishment' or 'commercial establishment' under the Standing Orders Ordinance 1968. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the appellate order was quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Which statutory definition of 'workman' applies when an employee seeks to enforce rights guaranteed under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Does a charitable hospital operated on a no-profit basis qualify as an 'industrial establishment' or a 'commercial establishment' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Can an employee of a non-profit charitable hospital invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 for violations of the Standing Orders Ordinance 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, ABBASI SHAHEED HOSPITAL, KARACHI vs Mst.1978 PLC 380 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-02-10Read full judgment →
• MECHANICAL ENGINEER, V. S. M. D., SUKKUR AND 4 Other . vs ANDREW JOHN1978 PLD Karachi 503 · Sindh High Court
  Industrial Relations Ordinanceadministration of the Statelabour disputePublic Works Departmentjurisdiction of labour courtredesignation of post
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to orders passed by labour authorities directing the redesignation of certain employees (Fitters) as Mechanical Mistris in the Public Works Department of the Government of Sindh. The core legal question was whether the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, applies to employees of the Public Works Department, specifically whether they fall under the exclusion of persons employed in the 'administration of the State' as per Section 1(3) of the Ordinance. The Court held that the Ordinance is applicable to these employees. Relying on established precedent, the Court determined that the phrase 'administration of the State' must be interpreted narrowly, referring only to the practical management and direction of the executive machinery or the operation of the sovereign's organs, rather than broadly encompassing all government service. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the employees were not excluded from the Ordinance's purview, and the petitions challenging the labour authorities' jurisdiction were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 apply to employees of the Public Works Department?
  • What is the scope of the phrase 'administration of the State' under Section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Are government employees automatically excluded from the application of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Mbsm REHMAT JAN MUHAMMAD HAJI DOSSAL & SONS-- vs Tlle ASSISTANT1978 PLD Karachi 518 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-30Read full judgment →
• MAZDOOR UNION vs RAHAT WOOLLEN MILLS, RAWALPINDI1978 PLC 178 · Labour Court · 1976-02-06Read full judgment →
• MAZDOOR UNION vs MESSRS FUTEHALLY CHEMICAL LTD., KARACHI1978 PLC 472 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-03-29Read full judgment →
• MAULA DAD ETC. vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Baghdadul Jadid 71 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1977-02-07Read full judgment →
• MAUJI vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 273 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-09Read full judgment →
• MATLOOB HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD AZAM AND Other1978 SCMR 326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-28
  post-arrest bailcross casemurdercommon objectdiscretion of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to the first four respondents, who were facing trial along with other accused under sections 302, 148, 149, and 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously in granting bail to the respondents despite a fatal injury occurring during the incident. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion was properly exercised, noting that the weapons used were lathis, significant injuries were sustained by the respondents' party, and a cross-case was pending. The court established the principle that where mutual injuries and cross-cases exist along with use of non-firearm weapons, the appellate court's grant of bail constitutes a valid exercise of judicial discretion that warrants no interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's grant of bail to accused persons in a murder case involving mutual injuries and lathi blows is an arbitrary exercise of discretion?
  • Does the existence of a cross-case and injuries sustained by the accused party justify the grant of post-arrest bail under section 302 read with section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• MATLOOB HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS vs MESSRS PHILLIPS ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES1978 PLC 428 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-03-14Read full judgment →
• Mat. IFFAT SULTAN BEGUM AND 3 Other vs AZIZ HUSSAIN AND 25 Other1978 PLD Karachi 139 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-27Read full judgment →
• MASTER ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN AND Another vs COMMERCE BANK LTD..1978 PLD Karachi 861 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-17Read full judgment →
• Master ABDUL AZIZ GHAFOOR KHAN AND Another vs MESSRS COMMERCE1978 PLD Karachi 36 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-05Read full judgment →