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.
- KAURA AND AN vs THE STATE1978 PLD Baghdadul Jadid 39 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1978-01-17Read full judgment →
- KARIM DAD vs ARIF ALI AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 679 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arose from a suit filed by a lessee under the Grow More Food Scheme seeking a declaration of entitlement to acquire proprietary rights by private treaty and challenging executive orders cancelling allotment. The trial court held the simple declaratory suit non-maintainable due to lack of possession, but suo motu directed the plaintiff to amend the plaint to include the relief of possession. The main legal questions involved whether a court could suo motu compel a party to amend a plaint, whether civil court jurisdiction was barred under Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912, and whether Article 14 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 governed the limitation period. The High Court held that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to compel a plaintiff to amend a plaint suo motu. It further ruled that Section 36 does not oust civil court jurisdiction where executive orders are ultra vires or void, and Article 14 does not apply to void administrative actions, making the residuary Article 120 applicable. The court set aside the order directing amendment and remanded the case.
Questions settled- Does a court have jurisdiction under Order VI Rule 17 or Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to compel a plaintiff suo motu to amend the plaint?
- Does Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 bar the jurisdiction of civil courts to examine administrative orders that are ultra vires or void?
- Is Article 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to a suit challenging an executive order that is void and passed without jurisdiction?
- KARACHI WAREHOUSE AND CARRIERS WORKERS' UNION vs PAKISTAN1978 PLC 554 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
- KARACHI WAREHOUSE AND CARRIERS WORKERS UNION vs PAKISTAN1978 PLD Karachi 417 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the declaration of respondent No. 1 as the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) for a group of establishments handling food grains and cargo. The petitioner, a registered trade union, alleged that the secret ballot process conducted by the Registrar of Trade Unions was procedurally flawed, specifically asserting that the date of the poll was not communicated to the petitioner and that the verified list of voters was not supplied in accordance with statutory requirements. The court examined the record and found that the Registrar failed to comply with the mandatory procedures prescribed under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, regarding notice and voter list distribution. Furthermore, the court noted that the respondent No. 1 failed to secure the requisite one-third of the total votes cast as mandated by law. Consequently, the court held that the certification of respondent No. 1 as the CBA was illegal. The court quashed the certificate, emphasizing that statutory procedural requirements for secret ballots are mandatory, and permitted the Registrar to conduct a fresh, lawful poll.
Questions settled- Are the procedural requirements for holding a secret ballot under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, mandatory?
- Can a trade union be declared a Collective Bargaining Agent if it fails to secure one-third of the total votes of the workmen employed in the establishment?
- Are the President and Vice-President of a trade union considered principal officers competent to sign and verify pleadings under Order XXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon factual disputes in a constitutional petition when the determination relies on documentary evidence?
- KARACHI HOSIERY MILLS WORKERS' UNION vs MESSRS CHOTANI GARMENTS1978 PLC 496 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-05-26Read full judgment →
- KALI AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 766 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-28Read full judgment →
- KALA vs THE STATE1978 PLD Baghdadul Jadid 25 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1977-04-10Read full judgment →
- JUMMA KHAN vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 534 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-09Read full judgment →
- JOHNSON & JOHNSON (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1978 PLC 477 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-11-06Read full judgment →
- JIA RAM vs Smt. KUNDANA WANTI AND 4 Other1978 PLD Quetta 91 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for a succession certificate filed directly in the High Court for the Kalat Division, where the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, was not enforced. The core legal questions were whether the Deputy Commissioner under the Dastur-ul-Amal Diwani Kalat constitutes a "principal civil court of original jurisdiction" and whether the High Court possesses concurrent jurisdiction to grant succession certificates under the Succession Act, 1925, in the absence of a District Judge. The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner, lacking the essential judicial power to render binding and definitive judgments, does not qualify as a "Court." Consequently, no principal civil court of original jurisdiction exists in the former Kalat Division. However, the Court ruled that it possesses concurrent jurisdiction under Section 300 of the Succession Act, 1925. It established that the phrase "all the powers" in Section 300 encompasses the entire Act, not merely Part IX. Invoking the principle ubi jus ibi remedium, the Court affirmed that it must provide a remedy where a statutory right to a succession certificate exists.
Questions settled- Does the Deputy Commissioner under the Dastur-ul-Amal Diwani Kalat constitute a 'Court' of original civil jurisdiction?
- Does the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction to grant a succession certificate under the Succession Act, 1925, in areas where no District Judge is appointed?
- Does the phrase 'all the powers' in Section 300 of the Succession Act, 1925, restrict the High Court's concurrent jurisdiction to matters under Part IX of the Act?
- JAVED AKHTAR vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, AZAD J & K STATE AND ANOTHER1978 PLC (C. S. T.) 126 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-05-22Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND Another1978 SCMR 287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Jan Muhammad against the cancellation of his post-arrest bail by the High Court. The petitioner and his father were named in a First Information Report registered on September 17, 1974, for the murder of Mumtaz Ali. The petitioner absconded until March 1976, while his father was tried and acquitted by the Sessions Court. Subsequently, the Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to the petitioner primarily based on the co-accused's acquittal. Upon a challenge by the complainant, the High Court cancelled the bail. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting bail to an accused on the ground that a co-accused has been acquitted in a separate trial arising from the same incident. The Supreme Court held that the findings of the Sessions Court in the trial of the co-accused father are not relevant to the petitioner's independent trial, and since the fatal shot was attributed to the petitioner, reasonable grounds exist to believe he committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the acquittal of a co-accused is a relevant ground for granting bail to an absconding accused?
- Does the evaluation of evidence in a previous trial of a co-accused bind the assessment of evidence in a separate trial of the remaining accused?
- When can the High Court interfere with and cancel bail granted by a lower court?
- JAMIL AHMED vs THE STATE AND Another1978 SCMR 43 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of a learned Single Judge of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court, which had granted bail to the second respondent in a criminal case involving charges under Section 302/307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the grant of bail, arguing that the charge involved murder. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the petition was filed with a delay of more than one hundred days. The petitioner attempted to justify this significant delay by claiming he was a minor and lacked understanding of the legal implications of the bail order. The Court found this explanation unsatisfactory, particularly because the petition failed to disclose when the petitioner became aware of the legal implications of the impugned order. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition primarily on the grounds of being time-barred, without addressing the merits of the bail grant itself. The decision reinforces the principle that a petition for leave to appeal must be filed within the prescribed limitation period and that inadequate explanations for substantial delays will not be accepted.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed solely on the ground of being time-barred?
- Is a claim of minority and lack of legal understanding a sufficient ground to condone a delay of over one hundred days in filing a petition?
- Does a failure to disclose when a petitioner became aware of the legal implications of an impugned order affect the court's consideration of a delay?
- JAMAL KHAN vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 2 Other1978 SCMR 179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a suit for specific performance or, alternatively, for the recovery of money, filed by the respondent, Ghulam Muhammad, against the petitioner, Jamal Khan, and others, following the petitioner's failure to transfer land despite a registered agreement to sell. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their appreciation of evidence regarding the payment of consideration, specifically concerning an affidavit and a promissory note alleged to negate the receipt of the sale price. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, which concluded that the sale price had indeed been paid as recited in the registered sale deed. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any flaw in the lower courts' assessment of evidence, particularly the finding that the impugned documents were forged and that there was no valid basis for the promissory note executed months after the sale. The Court affirmed the decree for the recovery of the sale price, emphasizing the evidentiary weight of registered instruments over subsequent, suspicious documents.
Questions settled- Can a registered sale deed's recital of consideration be effectively rebutted by subsequent documents alleged to be forged?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the appreciation of evidence?
- Is a suit for recovery of money maintainable when a contract for the sale of land cannot be specifically performed due to statutory restrictions?
- JAMAL DIN AND 2 Others vs The STATE1978 SCMR 433 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a criminal revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the convictions of the petitioners for offences involving assault and grievous hurt. The core legal questions were whether the courts below failed to properly consider the defence version of self-defence and whether the conviction of one petitioner, who denied participation, lacked sufficient corroboration. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts had correctly evaluated the evidence, including the defence plea, which was found to be meritless. The Court further held that the medical evidence, which confirmed injuries consistent with the specific weapons attributed to the three assailants, provided sufficient corroboration for the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that where concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are supported by ocular testimony and medical evidence consistent with the prosecution's narrative, and where the defence version has been duly thrashed out and rejected, the Supreme Court will not interfere in the absence of a legal or factual error.
Questions settled- Does the failure of lower courts to explicitly discuss defence evidence in their judgments necessarily vitiate the conviction?
- Can medical evidence regarding the type of weapons used serve as sufficient corroboration for the participation of an accused who denies involvement?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in criminal matters?
- JALIL vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 155 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction by the Foreign Exchange Tribunal for offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, specifically regarding the alleged sale and possession of foreign currency. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a taxi driver, was caught during a sting operation involving a bogus purchaser. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the sale of foreign currency beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the mere possession of foreign currency constituted an offence under the Act. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the transaction, noting that the alleged foreign currency was recovered from the appellant rather than the bogus purchaser, and that the financial calculations regarding the alleged sale were inconsistent. Furthermore, the Court held that possession of foreign currency alone does not constitute an offence under Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, without proving a failure to offer it for sale to an authorized dealer within the prescribed timeframe. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, with the Court emphasizing the necessity of strict proof in criminal proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the mere possession of foreign currency constitute an offence under Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947?
- Is a conviction for the sale of foreign currency sustainable when the currency is recovered from the seller rather than the alleged purchaser?
- Must the prosecution prove that a person failed to offer foreign exchange to an authorized dealer within the statutory timeframe to establish a violation of Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947?
- JAISAL vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 856 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-01Read full judgment →
- JAHANGIR KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATEPLD 1978 Rev. 72 Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1977-12-28Read full judgment →
- JAHANA vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 157 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-13Read full judgment →
- JAFARConvict vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 1209 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-03Read full judgment →
- JAFAR vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 1209 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-04Read full judgment →
- JADAL vs ABDUL MAJEED AND 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 732 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal challenges the judgment of the District Judge, Sukkur, which decreed a suit for pre-emption in favor of the respondent. The core legal question is whether the respondent validly performed the 'Talab-e-Ishhad' (the second demand) required under Islamic law to sustain a right of pre-emption. The appellant contended that the respondent failed to make the necessary reference to the 'Talab-e-Mawasibat' (the first demand) during the performance of the 'Talab-e-Ishhad', rendering the claim defective. The Court held that while 'Talab-e-Mawasibat' and 'Talab-e-Ishhad' may be performed simultaneously, the 'Talab-e-Ishhad' must strictly adhere to procedural requirements, including the presence of at least two witnesses and an explicit reference to the prior 'Talab-e-Mawasibat'. Finding that the respondent failed to establish that he made such a reference during the performance of the 'Talab-e-Ishhad' in the presence of the defendant, the Court set aside the appellate decree and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit, affirming that failure to comply with these essential procedural requirements defeats the right of pre-emption.
Questions settled- Is a reference to the Talab-e-Mawasibat a mandatory requirement when performing the Talab-e-Ishhad in a pre-emption claim?
- Can the Talab-e-Mawasibat and Talab-e-Ishhad be performed simultaneously?
- Does the Talab-e-Ishhad require the presence of at least two witnesses to be legally valid?
- J. J. MIRANDA vs FISHERMEN's CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KARACHI AND Another1978 PLD Karachi 990 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff, a former Accounts Officer of the defendant Co-operative Society, filed a civil suit challenging his dismissal from service and seeking damages for wrongful termination along with unpaid emoluments and allowances. The defendant society raised preliminary objections asserting that the suit was barred under Sections 54 and 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 due to lack of a mandatory two-month prior statutory notice and non-referral to arbitration. On the preliminary issue of maintainability, the High Court held that disputes concerning service matters between a society and its employees do not fall within the ambit of 'touching the business of the society' as contemplated under Sections 54 and 70 of the 1925 Act; hence, no statutory notice under Section 70 was required. On merits, the Court found that although a master-servant relationship generally precludes specific performance or reinstatement in service for employees of non-statutory entities, non-compliance with the disciplinary enquiry procedure prescribed in the society's service rules constituted a breach of contract entitling the employee to damages. The suit was decreed in part for damages and specified monetary claims.
Questions settled- Does a dispute relating to the termination or service conditions of an employee of a co-operative society fall within the phrase 'touching the business of the society' under Sections 54 and 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925?
- Is a statutory notice under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 mandatory before filing a suit for wrongful termination against a co-operative society?
- Can an employee of a co-operative society maintain a civil suit for damages for wrongful dismissal based on non-compliance with the society's internal service rules?
- J. J. HOSIERY MILLS vs HAZRAT WALI AND 3 OTHERS1978 PLC 420 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-05-04Read full judgment →
- J NAIB SUBEDAR AHMED KHAN vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. JHELUM1978 PLD Lahore 794 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-02Read full judgment →
- ISMAIL vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 718 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-25Read full judgment →
- ISLAMUDDIN vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 106 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, FINANCE DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD vs Qazi ABDUL KARIM, DEPUTY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, N. W. F. P., PESHAWAR AND Another1978 SCMR 289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner (the Government of Pakistan) sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Services Tribunal, Islamabad, which had accepted the appeal of respondent No. 1, an Assistant Accounts Officer. The respondent had been appointed to officiate in the higher post of Deputy Comptroller (later re-designated as Deputy Accountant General) but was denied the pay of that higher post based on a notification stating he would draw the pay of his own grade. The core legal question was whether a civil servant appointed to officiate in a higher post involving higher responsibilities is entitled to the minimum pay of that higher grade despite a restrictive condition in the appointment order. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that when an employee is promoted to officiate in a higher post involving higher responsibility, they must be held entitled to the minimum pay of the grade of that higher office. The Court reaffirmed that restrictive riders in appointment orders cannot deprive an employee of the minimum pay admissible to the higher post they actually served in.
Questions settled- Is a civil servant who is appointed to officiate in a higher post involving higher responsibilities entitled to the minimum pay of that higher grade?
- Can a condition in an appointment order restricting an officiating officer to the pay of their lower substantive grade deprive them of the pay of the higher post they actually work in?
- ISLAMABAD OMNIBUS SERVICE vs MUHAMMAD AZAM1978 PLC 170 · Labour Court · 1976-02-20Read full judgment →
- ISLAM vs MUKHTAR AHMAD ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 994 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower appellate and trial courts, whereby a suit challenging land alienations under Customary Law was partly decreed. The core legal questions involved whether the lower courts misread the evidence regarding the ancestral nature of the property and whether the sales were supported by legal necessity. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact based on a proper evaluation of jamabandis, mutations, and oral evidence do not constitute misreading of evidence, and that findings on legal necessity and ancestral character of land are pure questions of fact binding in second appeal. The key principle laid down is that a finding of fact arrived at by courts below after considering each piece of evidence does not amount to an error of law or misreading simply because a different conclusion could be drawn, and concurrent findings on such facts cannot be disturbed unless vitiated by misrepresentation or complete disregard of material evidence.
Questions settled- Does the misreading of evidence by lower courts vitiate a finding of fact so as to warrant interference by the High Court in second appeal?
- Whether the determination of the ancestral character of land based on revenue records and jamabandis constitutes a question of fact?
- Is a finding regarding the existence of legal necessity in property alienations under custom a pure question of fact?
- IRSHAD ALI vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 69 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-19Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD AHMED AND 2 OTHERS vs ABDUL GHAFFAR AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 661 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-08Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD AHMAD AND 2 Other vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 438 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-09Read full judgment →
- IQTIDAR HUSSAIN ZAIDI vs UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB1978 PLD Lahore 298 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-15Read full judgment →
- IQBALUR REEIMAN AND 6 OTHERS vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 35 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-05Read full judgment →
- IQBALUR REEIMAN AND 6 OTHERS Convict vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 35 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-05Read full judgment →
- IQBALUDDIN AHMAD SIDDIQUI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1978 PLC [C. S. T.) 22 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1977-07-23Read full judgment →
- IQBAL MASIH vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 860 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-05Read full judgment →
- IQBAL MAHMOOD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 566 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- IQBAL BEGUM vs ABDUL HAMEEDPLD 1978 Lahore 993 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-08Read full judgment →
- IQBAL AHMAD vs Mst. AL HAMIDI BEGUM AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 697 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-27Read full judgment →
- IQBAL AHMAD vs MEHRBAN ALI1978 PLD Lahore 1070 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-03Read full judgment →
- IPTIKHAR HUSSAIN GILANI vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L I 513 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-09Read full judgment →
- INSPECTOR OF DRUGS, HYDERABAD vs KHALIL AHMED AND 3 OTHERS Accused1978 P Cr. L 1660 · Drug Court · 1977-11-19Read full judgment →
- INAYAT vs SHARIF DIN1978 PLD Lahore 1358 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-23Read full judgment →
- INAYAT ETC. vs THE STATEPLD 1978 Lahore 907(2) · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-03Read full judgment →
- INAYAT ETC vs THE STATEPLD 1978 Lahore 907(2) · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-03Read full judgment →
- INAYAT BIBI ETC. vs ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT Co M M ISSION ER AND CHIEF SE TI1978 PLD Lahore 252 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- INAYAT BIBI ETC vs ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND CHIEF1978 PLD Lahore 252 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- KHAN BADSHAH vs The STATE1978 SCMR 77 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a bail application by the Peshawar High Court in a murder case. The petitioner, an aged man, was accused of murder, with the prosecution alleging he was armed with a firearm at the time of the occurrence, though no specific overt act beyond a 'Lalkara' was attributed to him. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given his age, the nature of the allegation, and the delay in the trial process. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's role was limited to a 'Lalkara' and that no weapon had been recovered from him. Furthermore, the Additional Advocate-General conceded that the petitioner was elderly and that the trial was unlikely to conclude within one year, as the final challan had not yet been submitted. Relying on the precedent of Abdul Aziz v. Bashir Ahmad, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The appeal was allowed, and bail was granted subject to the furnishing of a surety bond.
Questions settled- Is an accused person entitled to bail when the only role attributed to them is that of a Lalkara?
- Does the advanced age of an accused, combined with the lack of a recovered weapon and delay in trial, constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail in a murder case?
- INAMUDDIN vs NAZAR HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS1978 P Cr. L J 141 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-16Read full judgment →
- IMTIAZ vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 740 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-06Read full judgment →
- IMTIAZ BASHI R vs SPECIAL HIGH POWERED COMMITTEE THROUGH SECRE1978 PLD Quetta 131 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two consolidated constitutional petitions related to the refusal of admission to the petitioners, Imtiaz Bashir and Miss Farida Naz, in the first-year MBBS course at Bolan Medical College, Quetta, for the 1977 academic session, despite their high merit rankings. Ten additional seats were created by the Federal Government at the request of the Chief Secretary of Baluchistan for first divisioners and hardship cases, with selection left to the discretion of the Martial Law Administrator, Zone 'D', Baluchistan, who constituted a Special Committee. The Committee rejected the petitioners on the ground that they had sought alternative admission in a Bachelor of Dental Surgery course, while granting admissions to respondents who allegedly lacked proper domicile or were otherwise less meritorious. The core legal questions involved the scope of judicial review over executive and administrative actions under Martial Law, the justiciability of discretionary allocations, and the binding nature of the college prospectus rules. The Balochistan High Court held that the superior courts possess the power of judicial review to scrutinize arbitrary and discriminatory administrative decisions, that discretionary powers must be exercised judiciously in accordance with the established rules and prospectus, and that the rejection of the petitioners on fallacious grounds while favoring ineligible candidates was an abuse of jurisdiction. The court directed that the petitioners be admitted to the ensuing academic session.
Questions settled- Whether superior courts have the jurisdiction to review administrative decisions and discretionary acts of the Martial Law authorities under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does an applicant who has secured an alternative admission in another course lose their preferential right to admission on merit against additional seats?
- Whether the selection committee or authorities are bound by the rules laid down in the college prospectus when allocating additional seats created for hardship cases and first divisioners?
- IMDAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1978 PLD Karachi 521 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-15Read full judgment →
- IMAM DIN vs SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1978 SCMR 156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of a house in Village Piplan, District Mianwali, under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The appellant, initially granted the entire house, faced claims from the second and third respondents, who were later granted portions of the property by the Additional Settlement Commissioner based on their possession. The appellant challenged this division in the High Court, which upheld the Settlement Authorities' decision. The core legal questions were whether the Settlement Authorities possessed the jurisdiction to divide the property under the Revised Settlement Scheme No. VII, and whether the High Court erred in its factual findings regarding the respondents' occupation. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Authorities acted within their jurisdiction, as the Revised Settlement Scheme No. VII permitted the division of property among multiple occupants by incorporating general principles from the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Court affirmed that the authorities had the power to divide the house based on possession, and dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant failed to raise certain arguments during the administrative proceedings.
Questions settled- Do Settlement Authorities have the power to divide a house among multiple occupants under the Revised Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- Can a party raise a new legal contention regarding the authority of the Settlement Commissioner for the first time in writ jurisdiction?
- Is a compromise agreement between parties binding on the Settlement Authorities if it was not pressed during the revision proceedings?
- IKRAM-UL-HAQUE vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 44 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-09-28Read full judgment →
- IKRAM-UD-DIN vs Syed MAHBOOB ALI1978 PLD Karachi 145 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an eviction application filed by a landlord against a tenant for alleged rent default. The Rent Controller issued an order for the tentative deposit of rent under the Rent Ordinance. Following the tenant's failure to comply, the landlord successfully moved to strike off the tenant's defense, a decision upheld by the appellate court. The tenant appealed, challenging the Rent Controller's power to review the tentative rent order and arguing that he should have been permitted to prove that the rent had already been paid, thereby invalidating the deposit order. The High Court held that the Rent Controller possesses the authority to review orders to correct errors or at the instance of parties. Crucially, referencing the precedent in Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain, the Court determined that a tenant is entitled to demonstrate that a tentative rent order is factually incorrect due to prior payment. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order striking off the defense and remanding the matter to the Rent Controller to allow the tenant an opportunity to prove the alleged rent payments.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller have the authority to review or alter an order for the tentative deposit of rent?
- Can a tenant challenge the factual basis of a tentative rent order during proceedings to strike off their defense?
- Is a tenant entitled to prove prior payment of rent to contest an order for tentative deposit of rent?
- IJAZ AKHTAR vs The STATE1978 SCMR 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant bail to the petitioner, who faced charges under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had previously been denied bail by the Sessions Court and the High Court, and a prior petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed with directions to expedite the trial. The core legal question was whether bail should be denied solely due to the large amount of money involved in the alleged embezzlement or unsubstantiated fears of evidence tampering. The Supreme Court held that the magnitude of the amount involved, while significant, does not by itself constitute sufficient grounds for refusing bail. Furthermore, the Court ruled that in the absence of concrete evidence supporting allegations of potential tampering with prosecution evidence, bail cannot be denied on such speculative grounds. Consequently, the Court granted the petition, converted it into an appeal, and admitted the petitioner to bail, noting that the State retains the remedy of seeking cancellation of bail if the petitioner abuses the liberty granted.
Questions settled- Does the large amount of money involved in an alleged offence constitute sufficient grounds for refusing bail?
- Can bail be denied based on unsubstantiated allegations that an accused might tamper with evidence?
- What is the appropriate remedy for the State if an accused person abuses the bail granted to them?
- IFTIKHAR AZEEM vs LAHORE BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY1978 PLD Lahore 988 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-11Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR AHMED vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN KHANNo n1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 40 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1977-10-19Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR AHMAD vs DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, RAWALPINDI1978 PLC 480 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR AHMAD BUTT vs JOHN SAMUEL, ASSISTANT CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY1978 PLC 21 · Labour Court · 1975-05-12Read full judgment →
- IDRIS AHMED KHAN vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD AND 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 492 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- HYDERABAD REHABILITATION TRUST, KARACHI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 21978 PLD Karachi 802 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-20Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN BUY AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 708 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-13Read full judgment →
- HUMAYUN vs DEPUTY MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR1978 P Cr. L J 847 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-04Read full judgment →
- HULAM MUHAMMAD AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 465 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-10Read full judgment →
- HOTEL INTER-CONTINENTAL, KARACHI vs RAZIA SULTANA1978 PLC 413 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-02-14Read full judgment →
- HOTEL INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE) LTD., LAHORE vs THE PROVINCE OF WEST1978 PLD Lahore 53 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-22Read full judgment →
- HOME INSURANCE COMPANY vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM SIDDIQUI1978 PLC 174 · Labour Court · 1976-02-22Read full judgment →
- HIMAT HAU vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 394 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-13Read full judgment →
- HAYAT(REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIR) vs Mst. NIAMAT BIBI Arm 2 Other1978 PLD Lahore 245 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-23Read full judgment →
- HAYAT vs NUSRAT ALI Erc.1978 P Cr. L J 624 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-27Read full judgment →
- HAYAT REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIR vs Mst. NIAMAT BIBI AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 245 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-23Read full judgment →
- HASSAN KHAN vs HAZOOR BAKHSH AND 2 Other1978 PLD Quetta 52 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-10-04Read full judgment →
- HASHMAT ALI CHAWLA AND 3 Other vs DIRECTOR GENERAL, EXCISE &1978 PLD Karachi 691 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-29Read full judgment →
- HASHIM vs M. A. K. BAIG, ADMINISTRATORGENERAL, AUQAF OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND 15 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1013 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-17Read full judgment →
- HASHIM AND Another vs THE STATE1978 PLD Karachi 1106 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-22Read full judgment →
- HASAN KHAN vs HAZOOR BAKHSH AND 2 Other1978 PLD Quetta 4 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-10-04Read full judgment →
- HASAN DIN vs MHHAMNIAD MUSHTAQ AND 2 Other1978 SCMR 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, whereby one respondent was acquitted by giving him the benefit of the doubt and another respondent's death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life for murder. The core legal questions involved whether vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code was correctly applied and whether the High Court was justified in commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that the mere presence of an accused at the scene of the crime is insufficient to attract vicarious liability without strong circumstances showing a common intention, and that the commutation of the sentence was justified given that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment without a directly proved motive. The key principle laid down is that section 34 cannot be applied lightly to establish vicarious liability based solely on presence at the crime scene, and benefit of the doubt should be upheld where common intention is lacking.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of an accused person at the spot of the crime attract vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the High Court was justified in commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life when the immediate cause of the occurrence remained shrouded in mystery?
- Can vicarious liability be visited without strong circumstances showing a common intention between co-accused?
- HAROON SAAD vs PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1978 PLC 95 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-09Read full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ ETC. vs Lt.Col. MUHAMMAD HANIF KHAN MALIK ETC.PLD 1978 Rev. 41 Punjab · Board of Revenue · 1977-12-21Read full judgment →
- HAMID ANWAR MIRZA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PHARMEDIA CORPORATION, LAHORE vs Mst. NAZIRAN BIBI1978 PLC 245 · Labour Court · 1975-10-16Read full judgment →
- HAMID ALI BAIG vs THE STATE And 2 Other1978 SCMR 445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which challenged the registration of a criminal case against the petitioner for illegal storage of kerosene oil. The petitioner contended that the First Information Report (F.I.R.) failed to disclose an offence under Martial Law Regulation No. 30, arguing that the alleged violation was merely a breach of fiscal law rather than a criminal offence. The core legal question was whether the High Court should interfere with the registration of a criminal case and the subsequent investigation at an intermediary stage. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the writ petition was rightly dismissed because the investigation had been completed and a formal challan submitted to the Summary Military Court. The Court established the principle that where a case has reached the trial stage before a competent forum, the accused should raise their legal objections, including the validity of the charges, before that trial court rather than seeking premature intervention through writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with the registration of a criminal case or investigation at an intermediary stage?
- Should an accused challenge the validity of an F.I.R. through a writ petition when the case has already proceeded to the trial stage?
- Is a writ petition competent when the investigation is complete and a challan has been submitted to a trial court?
- HAMEED AHMED KHAN vs REGIONAL MANAGER. AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT1978 PLC 150 · Labour Court · 1977-01-05Read full judgment →
- HAKIM DIN vs MUHAMMAD IRSHAD1978 PLD Lahore 333 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-18Read full judgment →
- Hakeem ALI AKBAR vs MANZOOR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 639 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-29Read full judgment →
- Haji WALI MUHAMMAD AND Another vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Quetta 114 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition is directed against an order of the District Magistrate setting aside an order of discharge passed by a Magistrate in favor of the petitioners. The core legal question revolves around whether the District Magistrate was justified in setting aside the discharge order under revisional jurisdiction when the trial court had afforded adequate opportunities to the prosecution to produce evidence and material witnesses had failed to support the case. The Balochistan High Court held that revisional jurisdiction against an order of discharge is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly, specifically where the discharge order is perverse, involves misreading of evidence, or causes a miscarriage of justice. The Court ruled that the trial Magistrate was fully justified in discharging the accused after material witnesses did not support the prosecution and the complainant failed to adduce additional evidence despite multiple opportunities. Consequently, the High Court set aside the District Magistrate's order and restored the order of discharge passed by the trial court, laying down that an order of discharge should not be disturbed merely on the probability that further evidence might emerge.
Questions settled- Whether revisional jurisdiction can be invoked to set aside an order of discharge when the trial court's order is neither perverse nor suffers from misreading of evidence?
- Can an order of discharge be interfered with simply on the ground that further evidence might possibly be produced if the case is remanded?
- Is a Magistrate justified in discharging an accused under Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when material prosecution witnesses fail to support the complaint and the complainant repeatedly fails to adduce additional evidence?
- HAJI vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 558 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-15Read full judgment →
- Haji RASHIDUDDIN AND 2 Other vs DR. AHMED SADIQ1978 PLD Karachi 575 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-25Read full judgment →
- Haji QAMAR ALI vs THS STATE1978 SCMR 217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Peshawar High Court, which had relied on ocular evidence and the petitioner's subsequent abscondence to sustain the conviction, while rejecting the petitioner's plea of alibi. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the reliability of eyewitnesses and the rejection of the alibi defense supported by hospital records. The Supreme Court held that the ocular evidence was credible, noting that the witnesses were not shown to be inimical and that the defense failed to establish the alibi, as the hospital records appeared interpolated and the petitioner could have reached the hospital after the crime. The Court affirmed that the appreciation of evidence by the High Court was sound and that the plea of alibi was rightly rejected. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Questions settled- Can a plea of alibi be rejected if the accused had sufficient time to travel to the location of the alibi after committing the crime?
- Does the mere existence of a family relationship between witnesses and the accused automatically render them interested or unreliable witnesses?
- Is the appreciation of evidence by the High Court subject to interference by the Supreme Court when the findings are based on a reasonable assessment of facts?
- Haji MUHAMMAD SHAM ETC vs SHAHZADI BILQIS Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1133 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-17Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD SHAFI ETC. vs SHAHZADI BILQIS ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1133 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-17Read full judgment →
- Haji MALIK AMAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), PESHAWARAND 31978 SCMR 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition filed against a judgment delivered on 7-6-1974, which was presented on 2-10-1974, resulting in a delay of thirty-six days. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's mistaken impression that limitation did not run during the long vacation of the Court constitutes a sufficient ground for the condonation of delay. Holding that the petition is barred by time, the Court decided that since petitions are received during the vacation on working days under the Supreme Court Rules and Orders, no ambiguity or bona fide excuse existed to justify the delay. The key principle laid down is that a misunderstanding regarding the running of limitation during court vacations, in the face of clear rules providing for the receipt of petitions during such periods, does not furnish a valid basis for condonation of delay under the law.
Questions settled- Does limitation run during the long vacation of the Supreme Court?
- Can a mistaken impression regarding the running of limitation during court vacations serve as a bona fide excuse for condoning delay?
- Are petitions and other proceedings received by the Supreme Court during its vacation on working days?
- Haji MALIK AMAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) PESHAWAR AND 31978 SCMR 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was found to be barred by time by thirty-six days. The judgment challenged was delivered on 7-6-1974, and the petition was filed on 2-10-1974. The petitioner sought condonation of the delay, arguing under the impression that limitation periods did not run during the long vacation of the Court. The Supreme Court rejected this plea, holding that the practice of the Court, as established under the Supreme Court Rules, allows for the filing of petitions and proceedings during the vacation on all working days (excluding Saturdays). The Court found no ambiguity regarding this rule and concluded that the petitioner's misunderstanding did not constitute a bona fide excuse for the delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition on the ground of limitation, reaffirming that ignorance of the Court's established practice regarding filing during vacations does not justify condonation of delay.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for filing petitions in the Supreme Court of Pakistan cease to run during the Court's long vacation?
- Are petitions and other proceedings received by the Supreme Court of Pakistan during the long vacation?
- Does a mistaken belief that limitation does not run during the Court's vacation constitute a bona fide excuse for condonation of delay?
- Haji HAQ NAWAZ vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERPLD 1978 Rev. 78 Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1977-11-07Read full judgment →
- Haji GHULAM SHABBIR IMDADULLAH SHAHNAWAZ vs THE STATE THE STATE AND THE STATE1978 SCMR 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
- Haji GHULAM SHABBIR AND Another vs Tim STATE Opponent1978 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-29Read full judgment →
- Haji FAZAL HUSSAIN (REPRESENTED BY 7 HEIRS) AND Another vs MISTRI TAJ DIN1978 PLD Lahore 728 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-11Read full judgment →
- Haji FAZAL HUSSAIN (Repreented by 7 HIERS) AND AN vs Mistri TAJ DIN1978 PLD Lahore 728 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-11Read full judgment →