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.
- HAJI AND 3 OTHER vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 476 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-13Read full judgment →
- HAJI AHMAD BHATTI vs FATEH MUHAMMAD1978 P Cr. L J 756 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-02Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL BAQI AND Another vs MUZAFFAR ALI KHAN AND ANOTHERPL D 1978 Quetta 56 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-10-07Read full judgment →
- Hail MOOSA vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 835 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-07Read full judgment →
- HAFIZULLAH MALIK AND 38 Other vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND 21978 PLD Lahore 1104 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-30Read full judgment →
- HAFIZ ULLAH MALIK AND 38 OTHERS vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1104 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-30Read full judgment →
- HAFIZ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs SHAM BADSHAH1978 PLC 427 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-05-30Read full judgment →
- HAFIZ SHAH MOHAMMAD vs WALI MOHAMMAD1978 PLD Lahore 936 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-20Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD IKRAM vs MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ1978 PLD Lahore 996 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-27Read full judgment →
- HAFEEZULLAH vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1352 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-17Read full judgment →
- HADAYAT vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 97 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-05Read full judgment →
- HABIBUL WAHHAB ELKHEIRI AND MUHAMMAD SHAFT MUHAMMADI vs Khan1978 PLD Supreme Court 85 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved two criminal original petitions seeking contempt of court action against Khan Abdul Wali Khan for allegedly making derogatory remarks against the Supreme Court and its judges during speeches at Bar Associations and in a magazine interview. Upon notice, the respondent appeared and tendered an oral explanation, stating that his remarks were made in the heat of the moment under provocation, without any intent to malign the judiciary, and expressed regret while reiterating his respect for the court. Written apologies were also submitted by the editors and publishers of the newspapers that published the statements. The Attorney-General submitted that while the statements prima facie amounted to contempt, the explanation and expression of regret were satisfactory. The Court held that since the respondent had unambiguously expressed regret, affirmed his respect for the judiciary, and promised not to repeat such remarks—supported by an earlier explanatory press statement—the dignity and authority of the court had been duly vindicated. The notices issued to the respondent and the newspapers were accordingly discharged.
Questions settled- Whether remarks made against a judicial decision under political provocation constitute contempt of court?
- Does a determination rendered by the Supreme Court under Section 6 of the Political Parties Act, 1962, constitute a final judicial determination rather than an advisory opinion?
- Can unconditional apologies and subsequent explanatory press statements absolve respondents from contempt proceedings?
- HABIB BANK LTD., ZONAL OFFICE, LAHORE vs PERVEZ AHMED1978 PLC 233 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-08-20Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD., KARACHI vs GHAZANFARULLAH KHAN AND Another1978 PLD Karachi 263 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a recovery suit instituted by Habib Bank Ltd. against the principal debtor and a guarantor for the recovery of an outstanding loan amount. The core legal questions pertained to whether the guarantor executed the letter of guarantee and whether a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable against a guarantor when leave to defend is granted and the matter proceeds as an ordinary suit. The court held that the execution of the guarantee was duly proved through comparison of signatures under the Evidence Act 1872 and that the suit was maintainable against the guarantor even if it initially commenced under summary procedure, as multiple decrees can be passed and procedure furthering the administration of justice is permissible. The key legal principles laid down include the permissibility of signature comparison by the court under Section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872 and the flexibility of the court to treat a summary suit as an ordinary suit against a defendant once leave to defend is granted.
Questions settled- Whether comparison of a disputed signature with an admitted signature by the court is a lawful mode of proof under Section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Is a suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against a guarantor maintainable as an ordinary suit once unconditional leave to defend is granted?
- Can more than one decree be passed in a suit against one or several defendants during or at the conclusion of proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs GREEN GARMENTS MANUFACTURERS AND 2 Other S1978 PLD Karachi 1027 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit concerns a banking company's claim for the recovery of money and enforcement of an equitable mortgage against a partnership firm and its partners. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a suit combining a money claim with a mortgage enforcement, the applicability of the bar under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the competency of the signatories verifying the plaint, and the validity of an equitable mortgage without registration. The Court held that the suit was maintainable, finding no misjoinder of causes of action, as the plaintiff is entitled to seek both relief on the promissory note and the sale of mortgaged property. Furthermore, the Court determined that the bar under Order II, Rule 2 did not apply because the suits were filed simultaneously and involved distinct transactions. It was also held that the memorandum of deposit of title deeds did not require registration as it merely evidenced a past transaction, and the plaint was validly verified by authorized bank officers. The judgment reaffirms that banks may pursue consolidated recovery actions for secured debts.
Questions settled- Can a suit for the recovery of money and the enforcement of an equitable mortgage be joined in a single proceeding?
- Does a memorandum of deposit of title deeds that records a past transaction require registration under the Registration Act 1908?
- Does the bar under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply when two suits are filed simultaneously?
- What is the scope of authority for a bank official to verify a plaint under Order XXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- GULZAR vs KARIM BAKHSH AND 2 Others1978 P Cr. L J 146 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-09Read full judgment →
- GULZAR HUSSAIN vs KARAM ELAHI1978 PLC 113 · Labour Court · 1976-11-24Read full judgment →
- GULZAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 799 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-24Read full judgment →
- GULSHER vs The STATE1978 SCMR 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a bail application by the Lahore High Court in a case involving a murder charge under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, Gulsher, sought bail while his co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, armed with a Kassi, participated in an attack on the deceased, Abdul Majid, and a witness, Muhammad Hanif, with the petitioner specifically attributed with causing the fatal head injury to the deceased. The petitioner argued self-defence and noted that he had sustained simple injuries during the incident. The Supreme Court examined the allegations and the specific overt act attributed to the petitioner in the First Information Report. The Court held that the High Court had properly exercised its discretion in refusing bail, as the specific overt act attributed to the petitioner distinguished his case from that of his co-accused. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's order and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does the attribution of a specific overt act in an FIR justify the refusal of bail in a murder case?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in bail matters when the High Court has properly exercised such discretion?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail solely because co-accused persons have been granted bail, despite a specific overt act being attributed to the petitioner?
- GULLAB Convict vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 14 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-18Read full judgment →
- GUL ZADA vs Haji MUHAMMAD UMAR AND 7 OTHERS1978 PLD Peshawar 170 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-10-07Read full judgment →
- GUL ZADA vs Haji MUHAMMAD UMAR AND 7 OTHER1978 PLD Peshawar 170 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-10-07Read full judgment →
- GUL HASSAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 392 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-19Read full judgment →
- GUL HAIDER AND 11 OTHERS vs ASAT AND 15 OTHERS1978 PLD Peshawar 157 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-05-09Read full judgment →
- GUL HAIDER AND 11 Other vs ASAT AND 15 Other1978 PLD Peshawar 157 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-05-09Read full judgment →
- GUL DAD KHAN vs RAHIM SHAH1978 PLD Karachi 19 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal under section 15(4) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, challenges an appellate order of the Additional District Judge which reversed the Rent Controller's finding and held that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The core legal questions concern the maintainability of a second appeal against an appellate order reversing a finding on the preliminary issue of the landlord-tenant relationship and remanding the case, and the evaluation of evidence regarding such relationship. The court held that a second appeal is maintainable under section 15(4) of the Ordinance against an order of remand or an appellate finding on the existence of tenancy, as the statutory phrase 'any order passed on appeal' is wide enough to cover such orders. On merits, the court upheld the finding that the landlord-tenant relationship was established based on oral testimony and corroborative property tax records. The key principle laid down is that unlike first appeals under section 15(1) which are restricted to specific sections, second appeals under section 15(4) lie against any order passed on appeal, including orders of remand or preliminary findings.
Questions settled- Whether a second appeal under section 15(4) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is maintainable against an appellate order reversing a Rent Controller's finding on the relationship of landlord and tenant and remanding the case?
- Does the phrase 'any order passed on appeal' in section 15(4) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 cover interlocutory or remand orders passed by the first appellate authority?
- Are entries in the Excise and Taxation registers relevant to the determination of the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- GUL BOSTAN vs CHAMAN BADSHAH AND 2 Other1978 SCMR 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's application seeking the cancellation of bail granted to two respondents by the trial court. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court erred in upholding the bail granted to the accused, specifically regarding the age determination of one respondent and the evidentiary basis for the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court examined the medical evidence regarding the age of the accused, Chaman Badshah, noting that subsequent medical examinations, including X-rays, established his age as 16-17 years, justifying the trial court's discretion. Regarding the second respondent, the Court found that the trial court's decision to grant bail was based on the absence of any attributed overt act, which remained unchallenged by the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, as it was based on proper material and careful judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that the trial court acted properly in its assessment of evidence.
Questions settled- Is a trial court's decision to order a second medical examination for age determination considered a valid exercise of judicial discretion?
- Does the absence of an attributed overt act provide sufficient grounds for the grant of bail to an accused?
- Can a finding of fact regarding an accused's age, based on consistent medical evidence including X-rays, be challenged as arbitrary or unreasonable?
- GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR COURT1978 PLD Karachi 35 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-26Read full judgment →
- GRINDLAY's BANK LTD., KARACHI- vs P. D. BHADHA AND 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 610 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-26Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, MULTAN vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1978 PLC 45 · Labour Court · 1977-04-08Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, MULTAN vs MUHAMMAD ASHIQ1978 PLC 43 · Labour Court · 1975-04-06Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES vs MESSRS NATIONAL1978 PLD Karachi 827 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerns objections raised against an arbitration award arising from a dispute over the supply and rejection of cotton canvas waterproof tarpaulins. The core legal question was whether an arbitrator can adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact and issue an award without recording any evidence or having any evidence before them. The Sindh High Court held that although an arbitrator is not bound by the technical rules of the Evidence Act, they cannot decide disputed questions of fact in the complete absence of evidence, and doing so constitutes legal misconduct which vitiates the award. The key principle laid down is that while courts will not interfere with the sufficiency of evidence before an arbitrator, an award based on 'no evidence' amounts to legal misconduct, and an arbitrator must require parties to formally prove disputed documents.
Questions settled- Can an arbitrator adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact without having any evidence before them?
- Does deciding a matter without evidence amount to legal misconduct on the part of an arbitrator?
- Is a court competent to scrutinize arbitration proceedings to ascertain whether an award is based on no evidence?
- Must a party formally prove documents through witnesses when their correctness is denied by the opposing party before an arbitrator?
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN vs PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT No. 6, SUKKUR AND 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 940 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-01Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN1978 PLD Peshawar 10 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-04-18Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTEER vs DR. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ1978 SCMR 144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Pakistan against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld a decree for damages in favor of the respondent doctor. In December 1971, the Frontier Constabulary unjustifiably fired at the respondent's car, severely injuring him. The respondent filed a civil suit for damages, which was decreed by the trial court and affirmed on appeal by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the Deputy Attorney-General pressed the petition solely on technical legal objections, including limitation under the North-West Frontier Constabulary Act 1915, non-joinder of parties, and the alleged immunity of the Government from liability for the tortious acts of its employees. The Supreme Court held that these legal objections had either not been raised in the lower courts or had been expressly dropped, and it would not be just or equitable to grant leave to examine them for the first time. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal to examine a legal objection raised for the first time before it when such objection was neither pleaded nor raised in the courts below?
- Can a party raise the bar of limitation under section 17 of the North-West Frontier Constabulary Act 1915 for the first time in the Supreme Court?
- Whether the Government is liable for the tortious acts of its employees committed during the course of duty?
- GOVERNMENT OF N.W. F. P. 'THROUGH SECRETARY, MALIAT (REVENUE), PESHAWAR vs SHAMSHER ALI AND 18 OTHERS1978 PLD Peshawar 34 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-05-30Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF N. -W. F. P. THROUGH SERETARY, MALIAT (REVINUE), PESHAWAR vs SHAMSHER ALI AND 18 Other1978 PLD Peshawar 34 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-05-30Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN AND Other vs Mir QADIR BAKHSH & SONS1978 PLD Quetta 215 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-03-13Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN AND 4 Other vs Mir QADIR BAKHSH & SONS1978 PLD Quetta 204 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-03-13Read full judgment →
- GOLDEN INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI vs WORKERS' UNION1978 PLC 406 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-09-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM vs The STATE1978 SCMR 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a bail application by the Lahore High Court concerning a murder charge. A complaint was lodged alleging that the deceased was beaten to death after entering a house to meet a woman. The petitioner, a 75-year-old man with extremely weak eyesight, was alleged to have been armed with a sota and to have attacked the deceased, though the fatal injuries were contended not to have been caused by him. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail pending trial given his age, physical infirmity, and the nature of the specific allegations against him. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that the question of the petitioner's participation in the crime at night time required further inquiry under the circumstances. The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail upon furnishing sureties. The key principle laid down is that advanced age, physical infirmity such as weak eyesight, and the arguable nature of participation in a nocturnal crime constitute grounds for further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether the advanced age and physical infirmity of an accused warrant further inquiry into his participation in a crime for the purpose of bail?
- Does a general allegation of participation with a non-fatal weapon in a nocturnal incident justify granting post-arrest bail?
- Whether the Supreme Court will convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal for final disposal in bail matters?
- GHULAM SIDDIQUE vs PREMIER TOBACCO INDUSTRIES LTD1978 PLC 534 · Labour Court · 1978-01-11Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR vs The STATE1978 SCMR 33 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment maintaining the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, while commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of dying declarations containing discrepancies and the reliability of an eyewitness whose statement was recorded with delay. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that minor discrepancies in a dying declaration, such as the number of injuries, do not render the entire statement unreliable, as a dying declarant is often in extreme pain. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle of sifting the chaff from the grain, allowing courts to rely on parts of a dying declaration that consistently implicate an accused, even if other parts are found unreliable. The judgment reinforces that natural witnesses, such as local shopkeepers, remain credible despite delays in police recording their statements, provided there is no motive for false implication.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy in the number of injuries mentioned in a dying declaration render the entire statement unreliable?
- Can a court rely on a dying declaration that is partially false regarding the involvement of other co-accused?
- Does a delay in the police recording the statement of a natural witness necessarily invalidate their testimony?
- GHULAM SARWAR vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE 11, BALUCHISTAN Ante 41978 PLD Quetta 34 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM SAKINA vs GHULAM ABBAS1978 PLD Lahore 1389 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SABIR vs NOOK GHANI Etcs1978 SCMR 79 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL vs THE STATEPLD 1978 Lahore 784(1) · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL vs GENERAL MANAGER, PAR P. V. C. LTD., THATTA1978 PLC 322 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1977-10-07Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL vs Ch. RAFIQ AHMAD, PERSONNEL MANAGER, PACKAGES LTD.1978 PLC 161 · Labour Court · 1976-02-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs LALA AND OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1053 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN AND 2 Other1978 PLD Quetta 40 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-06-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL QURESHI vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND AND 2 OTHER , .1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 75 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1977-12-07Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QASIM vs MESSRS DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD1978 PLC 467 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-03-03Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR vs ASHRAF AND 3 OTHERS1978 P Cr. L J 114 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-29Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR AND 4 OTHERS vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 448 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-07Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR Alias KHARAI vs THE STATE1978 PLD Peshawar 160 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-10-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR alia KHARAIAccued vs THE STATE1978 PLD Peshawar 160 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-10-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI AND 6 OTHERS vs Mst. JAMILA BEGUM AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 817 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-05Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI AND 5 OTHERS/Accused vs THE STATE Opponent1978 P Cr. L J 792 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NAB! AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 297 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-21Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs LALA AND Other1978 PLD Lahore 1053 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, EDUCATION1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 29(1) · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1974-11-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs ABDUL GHAFOOR1978 PLD Rev. 10 · Board of Revenue · 1977-09-07Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUJTABA KHAN vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOE ZONE ' D', QUETTA1978 PLD Quetta 199 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 8 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 650 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-11Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTOER1978 PLD Lahore 478 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN And ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 478 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 420 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs ZIA ANWAR AND 3 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1054 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 2 Other vs ZIA ANWAR AND 3 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1054 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MOHYUDDIN vs AZHAR HUSSAIN AND Another1978 SCMR 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for contempt of court was filed under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din against a Deputy Settlement Commissioner and another respondent. The petitioner alleged contempt on the basis that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed an order declaring the petitioner's occupation of a roof and latrine illegal following an application for demarcation submitted by the respondent pursuant to earlier observations of the High Court and Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the respondents committed contempt of court by pursuing and adjudicating the demarcation matter before the Settlement authorities, and whether an alleged lack of statutory jurisdiction due to the repeal of Evacuee Laws constituted contempt. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondents had not violated any order issued by the High Court or Supreme Court. The Court laid down that initiating or conducting proceedings before an authority does not constitute contempt where no judicial order has been disobeyed, and jurisdictional objections must be raised before the relevant forum or through appropriate constitutional remedies rather than a contempt petition.
Questions settled- Does an authority commit contempt of court by acting on observations made in prior judicial orders permitting a party to approach it?
- Can a party file a contempt petition under Article 204 of the Constitution when no order or direction of the court has been violated?
- Is a challenge to the statutory jurisdiction of an administrative or settlement officer properly raised in contempt proceedings?
- GHULAM MOHAMMAD AND 3 Other vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 696 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 210 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN KHAN vs Mst. ASEELA BEGUM AND 3 mutts1978 PLD Azad J & K 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-01-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN Alias ZAIR vs Ch. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ETC.S1978 SCMR 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns eviction proceedings initiated by a landlord against a statutory tenant regarding an evacuee house transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The core legal question was whether a demand notice for rent is legally defective and invalid if it fails to specify the precise rate of rent, thereby preventing the landlord from seeking eviction for non-payment. The Supreme Court held that the notice was valid. The Court determined that under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, a statutory tenant is deemed to hold the property on the same terms and conditions as existed immediately before the transfer. Consequently, a demand notice that does not specify a rate implies a demand for the existing rent. The Court ruled that a tenant cannot escape liability for eviction on the technical ground that the rate was not specified in the notice, especially where the tenant was aware of the existing rent. A contumacious refusal to pay rent justifies eviction under the governing law.
Questions settled- Does a demand notice for rent under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 become invalid if it fails to specify the precise rate of rent?
- Is a statutory tenant under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 liable for eviction if they fail to pay rent despite receiving a notice of transfer?
- What are the terms and conditions of tenancy for a person in possession of an evacuee house transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- GHULAM HAIDER vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, PUNJAB, ZONE 'A' LAHORE1978 P Cr. L J 810 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER Alias BILLO vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 670 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER alia BILLO vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 670 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER (WRONGLY DESCRIBED AS GHULAM SAID) AND 5 Other vs KARAMAT (MINOR) AND ANOTHER S1978 PLD Lahore 673 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FATIMA vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND 4 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 998 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FATIMA vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND 4 Other1978 PLD Lahore 998 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB1978 SCMR 297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Ghulam Farid against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of his State land allotment. The petitioner was allotted land under the Ejected Tenants Scheme in 1956 but defaulted on rent payments from Kharif 1957 to Rabi 1973, failed to cultivate the land, and did not reside in the village. The Collector cancelled the allotment, an action upheld through successive appeals by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. The core legal question concerned the validity of the cancellation of land allotment without notice. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was admittedly a defaulter and that notice under section 24 of the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 was not required pursuant to section 27 of the Act, though notice had nevertheless been served. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a defaulter has no valid grievance against cancellation when afforded due opportunity of being heard.
Questions settled- Whether notice under section 24 of the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 is required to be served when section 27 of the Act dispenses with it?
- Does a tenant who is admittedly a defaulter in the payment of rent have grounds to challenge the cancellation of a land allotment?
- Can a writ petition be dismissed in limine against the concurrent findings of revenue authorities regarding non-payment of rent?
- GHULAM ALI AND 12 OTHERS vs THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF SIND1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 73 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 905 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAB BAIG vs MUHAMMAD YOUNAS AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1156 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAB BAIG vs MUHAMMAD YOUNAS AND 2 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1156 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-18Read full judgment →
- GHAZANFAR ALI vs MURREE BREWERY COMPANY LTD., RAWALPINDI , . (a)1978 PLC 171(2) · Labour Court · 1976-01-20Read full judgment →
- GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH ETC. vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1978 PLD Lahore 1375 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-23Read full judgment →
- GHAZANFAR ALI SHAH ETC vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1978 PLD Lahore 1375 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-23Read full judgment →
- GHAUS MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 1235 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for the quashment of a criminal case under sections 420 and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, pending before a Magistrate, arising from allegations of fraud and impersonation in mutation proceedings before a Revenue Officer. The core legal questions involve whether the offence of cheating under section 420 is made out when no harm is caused to the Revenue Officer, whether a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under section 468 without a written complaint from the Revenue Court under section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether a High Court is bound by a precedent of the Supreme Court considered to be per incuriam. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had not come with clean hands having concealed earlier dismissal of co-accused's petitions, and on merits followed the Supreme Court precedent holding that a revenue officer is not a court under section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that cheating is not made out on identical facts, while affirming that questions of fact regarding forgery and personation must be tried by the trial court.
Questions settled- Does the presentation of a fictitious woman to impersonate a property owner before a Revenue Officer constitute the offence of cheating under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is a Revenue Officer acting in mutation proceedings considered a Court under section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a High Court bound to follow a binding precedent of the Supreme Court even if the said precedent is argued to have been rendered per incuriam?
- Can a criminal petition for quashment be dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioner suppressed the fact that co-accused had previously filed similar petitions which were dismissed?
- GHALIB vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 846 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-02Read full judgment →
- GENERAL SECRETARY, MEHMOOD TEXTILE MILLS WORKERS UNION vs REGISTRAR1978 PLC 192 · Labour Court · 1975-05-09Read full judgment →
- GARDEE INVESTMENT LTD., LAHORE vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 844 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-26Read full judgment →
- GAHI vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 253 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-15Read full judgment →
- FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK, LAHORE vs GHULAM SALAM HASSAN1978 PLC 232 · Labour Court · 1975-10-12Read full judgment →
- FEROZE HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 84 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-13Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND Others vs Messrs CHARSADDA SUGAR MILLS1978 SCMR 428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent, a sugar mill, challenged an order by the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) regarding the abatement of excise duty under the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Sugar) Rules, 1972. The respondent had sought abatement due to production shortfalls caused by external factors like strikes, frost, and raw material shortages. The CBR, applying a self-evolved policy formula that disregarded shortfalls up to 10% of production capacity as being within management control, granted only partial abatement. The High Court quashed this order, prompting the Federation to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the CBR acted mechanically by applying a rigid formula rather than exercising its quasi-judicial discretion under Rule 4 of the Rules. The Court emphasized that when a statute vests discretion in an authority to grant relief based on circumstances beyond a manufacturer's control, the authority must fairly and reasonably examine the specific facts presented, rather than relying on arbitrary, pre-determined policies. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the remand of the matter for a fresh, reasoned decision.
Questions settled- Whether the Central Board of Revenue can apply a rigid formula to deny excise duty abatement without considering the specific facts of a case?
- Does the failure of the Central Board of Revenue to provide reasons for its decision constitute a failure to exercise quasi-judicial discretion?
- Is the Central Board of Revenue required to consider specific evidence of production shortfalls when exercising its discretion under Rule 4 of the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Sugar) Rules, 1972?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND Others vs MEESERS CHARSADDA SUGAR MILLS1978 SCMR 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent, a sugar mill, sought abatement of excise duty under the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Sugar) Rules, 1972, citing production shortfalls due to factors beyond its control, such as strikes, raw material shortages, and adverse weather. The Central Board of Revenue (CBR) granted only partial abatement, applying a rigid internal formula that arbitrarily excluded a percentage of the shortfall from consideration. The respondent challenged this in the High Court, which quashed the CBR's order and remanded the matter. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision. The core legal question was whether the CBR could mechanically apply a general formula to deny abatement without considering the specific merits of the manufacturer's claim. The Court held that the CBR's failure to examine the specific facts and circumstances of the case constituted a failure to exercise its quasi-judicial discretion. The principle laid down is that when a statute vests discretion in an authority to grant relief based on specific conditions, that authority must act justly, fairly, and reasonably by evaluating the individual merits of each case rather than relying on arbitrary, pre-determined formulas.
Questions settled- Can a statutory authority deny a claim for duty abatement by applying a rigid, pre-determined formula without considering the specific facts of the case?
- Does the failure of an authority to provide reasons for its decision in a quasi-judicial matter constitute a failure to exercise discretion?
- Is the Central Board of Revenue required to independently evaluate the merits of a manufacturer's claim for abatement under the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Sugar) Rules, 1972?
- FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND Another AND FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1978 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-03Read full judgment →