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.
- ABDUL WAHID BALUCH vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 45 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-11-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID AND 3 OTHERS vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, MECHANICAL1978 PLC 516 · Commissioner For Workmen's Compensation · 1978-05-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs ABDUR RASHID Alias SHEEDA AND 2 Other1978 SC MR 73 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that modified a conviction for murder. The trial court had convicted the respondent under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, while the High Court converted this to a conviction under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, and upheld the acquittal of a co-accused. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of the evidence and in rejecting the prosecution's version of the incident. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings were supported by the material on the record, particularly regarding the implausibility of the prosecution's motive and the physical evidence of injuries on the accused. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court's factual determination. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not disturb findings of fact made by the High Court when such findings are based on a reasonable evaluation of the evidence and the circumstances of the case.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's factual findings regarding the credibility of prosecution witnesses in a criminal appeal?
- Does the presence of injuries on an accused person, contrasted with the absence of injuries on the complainant, support a defense version of an altercation?
- Is a conviction under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 appropriate when a fatal shot is fired to rescue a friend rather than with the intention to kill?
- ABDUL SHAKOOR AND Another vs ALLAH DITTA1978 PLD Lahore 1456 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR AND AN vs ALLAH DITTA1978 PLD Lahore 1456 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR, PROPRIETOR, KOH-I-NOOR OIL MILLS, HYDERABAD vs BALAM1978 PLC 418 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-05-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH THE SECRETARY, KARACHI1978 PLD Karachi 59 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by Abdul Sattar seeking admission to a medical college in Sind after being wrongfully deprived of a reserved seat for the academic year 1975-76. The core legal question was whether the authorities could deny admission to a qualified candidate on the ground that academic admissions for that year had already closed, where the vacancy arose due to the unlawful admission of other candidates through forgery and administrative default. The Sindh High Court held that the respondents could not take advantage of their own wrong actions and defaults to the detriment of a legitimate candidate. The court ruled that since the petitioner was entitled to admission on merit but was pushed down due to improper admissions later cancelled, he was entitled to be accommodated. The key principle laid down is that authorities cannot defeat a meritorious candidate's lawful right to admission through delays or defaults of their own making, and where necessary, an additional seat must be created to rectify such injustice.
Questions settled- Can authorities deny admission to a meritorious candidate on the ground that admissions for the academic year are closed when the vacancy arose due to administrative default or forgery?
- Whether the respondents can take advantage of their own wrong action to deprive a petitioner of a rightful admission?
- Can the court direct the government to create an additional seat to accommodate a candidate wrongfully deprived of admission?
- ABDUL SALAM vs THE STATE1978 PLD Karachi 682 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM AND Another vs Ch. NOOR MUHAMMAD1978 PLD Lahore 337 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM AND AN vs Ch. NOOR MUHAMMAD1978 PLD Lahore 337 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 589 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs MUHAMMAD AFSAR KHAN1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 156 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-06-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs MESSRS SHAHEEN CINEMA, HYDERABAD1978 PLC 345 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-10-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs Tim STATE1978 PLD Karachi 579 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF vs THE STATE1978 PLD Karachi 964 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF MALIK AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 410 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF MALIK AND Another vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND Another1978 PLD Lahore 410 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASOOL vs GHULAM RASOOL AND 7 OTHERS1968 PLD Lahore 317 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs MESSRS PARAMOUNT SILK MILLS, KARACHI1978 PLC 475 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-11-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 912 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of multiple connected writ petitions challenging the decision of the Settlement authorities to charge a revised rate of Rs. 100 per Produce Index Unit (P.I.U.) instead of the original rate of Rs. 10 per P.I.U. for the purchase of excess rural agricultural land. Under Section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance 1974, occupants who met certain criteria were given a statutory right to purchase excess land. The petitioners had exercised their option to purchase within the deadline of December 31, 1974, when the rate was Rs. 10 per P.I.U. However, due to administrative delay, their cases were not finalized before the Government issued a circular in May 1975 raising the price to Rs. 100 per P.I.U. 'henceforth'. The High Court held that the revised rates could not be applied retroactively to pending cases where options had been timely exercised. The Court ruled that applicants cannot be penalized for administrative inaction and declared the orders charging the higher rate to be without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether a revised, higher rate for purchasing evacuee land can be applied retroactively to applicants who had already exercised their option within the prescribed period under an earlier policy?
- Can a citizen be penalized or deprived of a lower pricing benefit due to administrative delay or inaction by settlement authorities in finalizing their application?
- Does an occupant of evacuee land who meets statutory criteria possess a sufficient personal interest or right to maintain a constitutional petition against an arbitrary price increase?
- ABDUL MAJID AND 3 Others vs The STATE1978 SCMR 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order maintaining the petitioners' convictions under Sections 323, 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while modifying their sentences. The petitioners argued that their right to cross-examine the complainant regarding the F.I.R. was violated and that the elements of house-trespass under Section 452 were not met, as their entry was for matrimonial reconciliation. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions. Regarding the procedural objection, the Court held that the petitioners failed to raise the issue of cross-examination before the trial court, the appellate court, or the revisional court, and thus could not raise it at the belated stage of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Court found no prejudice. Regarding the substantive objection, the Court held that concurrent findings of fact established that the petitioners entered the complainant's house armed with sticks and caused injury, which satisfied the requirements for house-trespass with preparation for causing hurt. The petition was dismissed, affirming that concurrent findings on evidence regarding trespass and intent are generally not disturbed.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise an objection regarding the denial of cross-examination for the first time at the Supreme Court level if it was not agitated before the trial or appellate courts?
- Does entering a house while armed with sticks to resolve a matrimonial dispute constitute house-trespass under Section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the commission of house-trespass?
- ABDUL LATIF vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 682 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF BUTT vs MECHANIZED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN LTD.1978 PLC 452 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-04-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ AND AN vs THE STATE1978 PLD Baghdadul Jadid 60 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1977-11-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs MAQBOOL HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1978 PLD SC (A J& K) 140 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-05-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM Alias TARE EN vs TRIBUNAL Dt A. C. AND S. D. M. AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 496 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KADIR AND 15 Other vs THE STATE1978 PLD Karachi 543 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR KHAN vs OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE OF KARACHI1978 PLD Karachi 938 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR AMIN AND OTHERS vs SIEGFRIED BEACON PAKISTAN LTD.1978 PLC 580 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-02-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAQ alias ABDULLAH vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 453 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD THROUGH ITS MANAGING1978 PLC 59 · Labour Court · 1976-01-31Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 150 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal miscellaneous application for post-arrest bail arising from a case registered under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The applicants, who are brothers, were accused of firing from the roof of their house onto a procession, resulting in injuries and one death. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicants made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, given the distance of the house from the scene of the incident, the presence of charring around the injuries indicating close-range firing, delayed FIR lodging, lack of identification by injured witnesses, and absence of a ballistic expert report linking the recovered weapons to the crime. The Sindh High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry into the applicants' liability, and the Assistant Advocate-General having no objection, the court granted post-arrest bail subject to sureties, while permitting the trial court to cancel bail if direct incriminating evidence later emerged.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of a ballistic expert report and identification by injured witnesses makes out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when medical evidence regarding charring contradicts the prosecution's version of the distance from which shots were fired?
- Does a delay of four hours in lodging the FIR, when police were already present at the scene, create doubt warranting bail?
- ABDUL HAKIM AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 515 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKIM AHD 2 Other vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER Opponents1978 PLD Karachi 359 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated on a direct complaint for offences under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 against partners of a firm. The core legal question is whether a partner can be prosecuted for criminal breach of trust or cheating by another partner for withholding profits, failing to render accounts, or managing partnership assets. The Sindh High Court held that partners are joint owners or co-owners of partnership property and cannot be entrusted with dominion over their own property, rendering criminal prosecution under section 406 or 420 unsustainable. The court ruled that the proper remedy for a partner seeking settlement of accounts or share of profits is to file a civil suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, rather than invoking criminal jurisdiction. Consequently, the criminal proceedings were quashed as an abuse of the process of the court, laying down the principle that disputes regarding partnership accounts and withheld profits are civil in nature.
Questions settled- Can a partner be prosecuted under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code for withholding the share of profits or failing to render accounts to another partner?
- Is a partner considered to be entrusted with property or dominion over it in respect of partnership assets for the purposes of criminal breach of trust?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy for a partner claiming a share of profits or settlement of accounts from co-partners?
- ABDUL GHANI vs MUHAMMAD SULEMAN AND ANOTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 897 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs MUHAMMAD SULEMAN AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 897 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 262 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs MURREE BREWARY COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER1978 PLC 79 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-06-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND 2 Other1978 SCMR 78 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court dismissing a petition for leave to appeal on the ground of being barred by limitation by 109 days. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient cause and daily explanation of delay were established to condone the 109-day delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment, which had restored a property transfer in favor of the auction purchaser. The Supreme Court held that no justification or satisfactory explanation had been made out to reopen the matter, noting that the petitioner failed to show promptitude upon knowing the decision. The court laid down the principle that a party seeking condonation of delay must satisfactorily explain each day of delay and show promptitude, and that a review petition is not competent when no sufficient ground for reopening the case is established.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition is competent when the original petition for leave to appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation?
- Does a delay of 109 days in filing a petition for leave to appeal require a satisfactory explanation for each day of delay?
- Is a petitioner entitled to condonation of delay without showing sufficient justification and promptitude?
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 1242 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LYALLPUR1978 PLC 189 · Labour Court · 1976-12-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs ANWARUL HASSAN ETC.1978 SCMR 149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which granted bail and suspended the sentence of a respondent convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The petitioner challenged the High Court's authority to suspend a sentence of life imprisonment under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arguing that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily and without sufficient reasoning. The Supreme Court held that Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not restrict the Appellate Court's discretion to grant bail based on the nature of the conviction or the sentence imposed. The Court affirmed that while such discretion must be exercised judicially, the High Court had properly considered the weak nature of the circumstantial evidence and the lack of identification of the deceased in the trial court's judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court's exercise of discretion was sound, and the petition was dismissed, establishing that the power to suspend a sentence pending appeal is broad and discretionary.
Questions settled- Does Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 restrict the Appellate Court's discretion to grant bail based on the severity of the sentence or conviction?
- Is the discretion of the Appellate Court to suspend a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 absolute or must it be exercised judicially?
- Can an Appellate Court suspend a sentence of life imprisonment pending the hearing of an appeal?
- ABDUL FARUKH vs PRESIDING OFFICER, JUNIOR LABOUR COURT No. IV, KARACHI1978 PLD Karachi 867 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BARI vs KHADIM HUSSAIN1978 PLD Supreme Court 78 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an ejectment order against a tenant from non-residential premises, sought by the landlord for reconstruction purposes. The core legal questions were whether a landlord can evict a tenant from non-residential premises to reconstruct it into a residential building, and whether the grounds of "reconstruction" and "personal need" are mutually exclusive. The Supreme Court held that the pleas of bona fide reconstruction and personal requirement are not mutually exclusive; rather, linking them can strengthen a landlord's case. Furthermore, the Court held that Section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, does not restrict a landlord to reconstructing a building of the same type or purpose as the original. The Court affirmed that changing the nature of a building from non-residential to residential through reconstruction is a valid ground for ejectment, provided the requirement is reasonable and in good faith. The principle established is that the statutory right to reconstruct is not limited to maintaining the existing character of the premises, and the penal provisions of the Ordinance serve as a safeguard against bad faith.
Questions settled- Are the pleas of reasonable and bona fide requirement for reconstruction and the requirement for personal use mutually exclusive?
- Does the law prohibit the reconstruction of a non-residential building into a residential one for the landlord's personal use?
- Is the right to seek ejectment for reconstruction limited to rebuilding the premises for the same purpose and character as the original?
- ABDUL AZIZAccused vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 11 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 260 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs Syed ARIF ALI AND 6 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 441 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs Syed ARIF ALI AND 6 Other1978 PLD Lahore 441 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs SEVEN UP Co., KARACHI AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 10 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for the rectification of the register of trade marks under Section 37 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, seeking the removal of two registered trade marks held by the respondents in Class 30 (candy and confectionery) due to non-use. The core legal question was whether the proviso to Section 37(1), which allows a proprietor to defend against non-use by proving bona fide use on "goods of the same description," permits reliance on use of the mark in a separate registration (Class 32). The Court held that the proviso is only applicable where the use occurs on goods covered by the same registration as the impugned mark. Since the respondents admitted to non-use of the mark in relation to the goods in the Class 30 registration, and their use in Class 32 could not be invoked as a defense, the Court ordered the removal of the marks. The principle established is that the statutory protection against removal for non-use is strictly confined to use within the specific registration under challenge, not across different registrations.
Questions settled- Can a registered proprietor defend against the removal of a trade mark for non-use by citing use of the mark in a different registration?
- Does the proviso to Section 37(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 require that the goods used be within the same registration as the impugned mark?
- Who qualifies as a 'person aggrieved' for the purpose of seeking rectification of the trade mark register?
- Is non-use of a trade mark for a period of five years sufficient grounds for its removal from the register?
- ABDUL AZIZ vs GHULAM SARWAR1978 PLD Lahore 978 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-21Read full judgment →
- ABAIDULLAH vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 1349 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-29Read full judgment →
- A. Z. ABBASI vs WAPDA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND 2 OTHERS , .1978 PLC 156 · Labour Court · 1976-02-20Read full judgment →
- A. JAVAID, PRESIDENT, PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINESCORPORATION1978 PLC 132 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- A. JAVAI D, PRESIDENT, PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION1978 PLD Karachi 64 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of the National Industrial Relations Commission to register the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees' Union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Commission had rejected the application, citing Section 7-A of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, arguing that the Act and the Ordinance were mutually inconsistent and that the Act occupied the entire field, thereby precluding registration. The core legal question was whether the application of the Essential Services Act to an organization renders the registration of a Trade Union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance legally impossible due to repugnancy. The Court held that the two statutes are not wholly irreconcilable. It established that mere potential for conflict in specific functions, such as the right to strike or wage regulation, does not invalidate the registration of a Trade Union. The Court ruled that inconsistency must be positive and absolute to displace a statute. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar to register the petitioner-Union, affirming that the existence of a Trade Union is not incompatible with the Essential Services Act.
Questions settled- Does the application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, to an organization automatically prohibit the registration of a Trade Union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- What is the legal test for determining whether the provisions of two statutes are inconsistent or repugnant to the extent that one displaces the other?
- Does the mere potential for conflict in specific functions between two statutes render the entire registration of a Trade Union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, invalid?
- A. G. SIKANDAR vs Haji ABDUL HAMID1978 SCMR 85 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an eviction application filed by the respondent-landlord on grounds of willful default and personal requirement under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The petitioner-tenant denied title, but the Rent Controller held that an implied landlord-tenant relationship existed and ordered tentative rent deposit under Section 13(6). The petitioner defaulted in depositing future rent, prompting the Rent Controller to strike off his defence without examining his objections. The petitioner appealed to the District Court and Lahore High Court, claiming ignorance of the law, bereavement in the family, pending appeal, and lack of notice under Section 13-A. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that the objections lacked merit and that non-service of Section 13-A notice was a mixed question of fact not raised in the courts below. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that striking off defence is justified when no valid cause is shown and new factual pleas cannot be raised for the first time before the apex court. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a tenant resist an order striking off defence for default in rent deposit on the ground that an appeal against the tentative rent order was pending without a stay?
- Whether a plea regarding non-service of notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 can be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Is it necessary to remand a case to the Rent Controller for examining a tenant's objections to striking off defence if the appellate and High Courts have already fully considered and rejected those objections on merits?
- [Service Tribunal Punjab] GHULAM ALI vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS1977 PLC [C.B.T.] 97 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1975-12-09Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 364 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-05Read full judgment →
- ZORE KHAN AND 6 OTHERSConvicts vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 297 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-22Read full judgment →
- ZIAULLAH KHAN vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS AND 4 OTHERS1977 PLC 654 · Labour Court · 1977-02-09Read full judgment →
- ZEENAT TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LAHORE vs THE CONTROLLER OF CAPITAL ISSUES, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1977 PLD Lahore 779 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ZARIN SHAH AND 2 Others vs The STATE1977 SCMR 37 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the Peshawar High Court's judgment, which had reversed the trial court's acquittal of the appellants for the murder of Muhammad A.I Shah and for causing hurt to Mehr Shah. The core legal question concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the validity of the appellants' counter-version regarding a struggle at their shop, and the application of common intention in a murder case. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Zarin Shah for murder, finding the prosecution's eyewitness account consistent and rejecting the defence's claim of a prior attack at their shop. Regarding Zahir Shah, the Court held that the specific role attributed to him—holding the deceased—was doubtful, thereby granting him the benefit of the doubt and acquitting him. The conviction of Multan Shah for causing simple hurt was maintained. The judgment reaffirms that minor injuries on an accused or their family members do not necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case if the primary evidence is credible and the defence version lacks corroborative marks of a struggle at the alleged scene.
Questions settled- Does the presence of minor injuries on an accused or their family members automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Can an appellate court convict an accused after the trial court has acquitted them based on the same evidence?
- Is the benefit of the doubt applicable to one co-accused while maintaining the conviction of another in a joint criminal charge?
- ZAR KHAN vs ASSISTANT VICE-PRESIDENT, MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.1977 PLC 658 · Labour Court · 1977-02-13Read full judgment →
- ZALIADAR AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 710 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-13Read full judgment →
- ZAKIR ALI vs THE STATE1977 PLD Karachi 833 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal concerns the sentencing of an appellant convicted for the possession of an unlicensed flick-knife under the Arms Ordinance 1965, following a separate conviction for causing hurt with the same weapon. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, possesses the authority to direct that sentences awarded in separate trials run concurrently, notwithstanding the default rule under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which mandates consecutive sentences in the absence of a specific judicial direction. The Court held that it maintains the discretionary power to order separate sentences from distinct trials to run concurrently. The principle laid down is that while Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally requires sentences to take effect in the order passed, the High Court retains the power, during appeal or revision, to modify this and direct concurrent execution of sentences. Given the inter-related nature of the offences, the Court exercised this discretion to order the sentences to run concurrently, partially allowing the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the power to order separate sentences awarded in separate trials to run concurrently?
- Does the default rule of consecutive sentencing under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to separate trials?
- Are flick-knives considered 'arms' under the Arms Ordinance 1965 regardless of blade size?
- ZAHUR AHMAD AND 3 0/HERS vs TEE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 47 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-27Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR AHMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1044 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-22Read full judgment →
- ZAHID HUSSAIN AKHTAR vs Latif Jalili For Appellant.1977 PLC 407 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- ZAFIURUL HASSAN & BROTHERS vs ABDUL HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 252 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-25Read full judgment →
- ZAFFAR ALI KHAN vs THE BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND,HYDERABAD1977 PLD Karachi 566 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-16Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ETC. vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 476(1) · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-11Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ABBAS vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JHANG AND OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 949 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-06Read full judgment →
- ZAEOOR AHMAD vs MAHMOOD ALI AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 1377 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges an order passed by the Settlement Commissioner, which altered the transfer price of the petitioner's property portion after a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) had already been issued. The core legal question concerns the finality of settlement proceedings and the jurisdiction of authorities to interfere after the issuance of a P.T.D. The Court held that settlement authorities become functus officio upon the issuance of a P.T.D., and can only interfere if the original order was void ab initio or obtained through fraud. The Court clarified that fraud requires proof of an intention to deceive or induce action through misrepresentation, and an order obtained by fraud is voidable, not void. Conversely, a void order is one passed without jurisdiction or in violation of mandatory law. Finding that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner’s initial order was passed with independent application of mind and without fraud, the Court ruled that the Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to reopen the matter. Consequently, the impugned order was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Can settlement authorities interfere with property rights after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- Is an order obtained by fraud void or voidable?
- What constitutes a void order in the context of settlement proceedings?
- ZAEEMUL FAROOQ MALIK vs UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB ETC.1977 PLD Lahore 1334 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-04Read full judgment →
- YUSUF ALI KHAN, BARRIsTERATLAw vs Malik TAHIR MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 913 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-29Read full judgment →
- YUSUF ALI KHAN, BAR AT LAW vs MUHAMMAD JAVED IQBAL CHEEMA1977 SCMR 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a civil dispute concerning inheritance and revenue mutations. The petitioner instituted a civil suit for a declaration and challenged certain revenue orders. During the trial, the Senior Civil Judge framed an additional issue, which was subsequently deleted by the Additional District Judge in revision upon a statement made by the petitioner's counsel. The petitioner's review and clarification applications were dismissed. The petitioner then approached the High Court through a constitutional petition, which was dismissed in limine by a Single Judge. A subsequent intra-court appeal to a Division Bench was dismissed as incompetent pursuant to the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was competent against an interlocutory order at an intermediate stage of a suit, and that the Division Bench correctly ruled the intra-court appeal to be incompetent. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, with observations that the petitioner's apprehensions regarding the presentation of evidence were unfounded as all relevant points were covered by the existing issues.
Questions settled- Whether a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is competent against an order passed at an intermediate stage in the course of the trial of a suit?
- Does an intra-court appeal lie to a Division Bench of the High Court against an order of a Single Judge relating to the deletion of an issue in civil proceedings under the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972?
- Does the distinction between the existence of jurisdiction and the exercise of jurisdiction affect the maintainability of a revision petition before the District Judge?
- YOUSUF RE-ROLLING MILLS, KARACHI vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI1977 PLD Karachi 911 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-19Read full judgment →
- YOUSUF AND 5 others vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 134 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-27Read full judgment →
- YASMIN ETC. vs MUAHAMMAD KHALID1977 P Cr. L J 54 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-06Read full judgment →
- YASIN SONS LTD., MULTAN vs THE WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT1977 PLD Lahore 937 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- YAQOOB vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 519 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-03Read full judgment →
- Wt. MUHAMMAD AHMAD (REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL Hems) vs Da. NIAZ1977 PLD Lahore 945 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- WORKSHOP OFFICER, M. P.O. WAPDA, SUKKUR vs Mst. BARKATEY1977 PLC 721 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-10-24Read full judgment →
- WORKS MANAGER, WAPDA ELECTRICAL & MECHANICAL WORKSHOP, LAHORE1977 PLD Lahore 321 · Lahore High Court · 1967-09-21Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION vs MANAGEMENT OF PRINTING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN1977 PLC 59 · National Industrial Relations Commission · -Read full judgment →
- WORKERS UNION vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, RAWALPINDI1977 PLC 717 · Labour Court · 1976-09-22Read full judgment →
- WORKERS UNION vs MESSRS REGAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY1977 PLC 412 · Labour Court · 1975-05-25Read full judgment →
- WORKERS UNION vs MESSRS EJAZ BROTHERS CANVAS INDUSTRY, LAHORE1977 PLC 639 · Labour Court · 1976-03-24Read full judgment →
- WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH THE 'EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RAWALPINDI- Appellant1977 PLD Lahore 1013 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a trial court order making an arbitration award a rule of the court. The dispute arose from a construction contract where the parties appointed a Superintending Engineer as the sole arbitrator. During proceedings, the arbitrator was transferred to a different post, prompting the appellant to argue that his authority as arbitrator ceased upon his transfer. The core legal question was whether an arbitrator appointed by designation (by virtue of holding a specific office) loses jurisdiction upon transfer from that office, and whether a party is estopped from challenging such authority after participating in proceedings. The Court held that the arbitrator's authority did not terminate upon his transfer, as the Arbitration Act contains no provision for automatic cessation of authority in such circumstances. Furthermore, the Court held that the appellant was estopped from challenging the arbitrator's competence, having previously opposed the revocation of the arbitrator's authority and continued to participate in the proceedings. The principle established is that an arbitrator appointed by designation remains authorized unless removed by the court, and a party participating in proceedings without objection is estopped from later challenging the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does an arbitrator appointed by virtue of holding a specific public office lose their authority upon transfer to a different post?
- Can an arbitrator's authority be revoked without the leave of the court under the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Is a party who participates in arbitration proceedings without objection estopped from later challenging the arbitrator's jurisdiction?
- Under what circumstances does an arbitrator cease to have jurisdiction over a dispute under the Arbitration Act 1940?
- WEST PAKISTAN SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, LAHORE vs Haji BASHIR AH1977 PLD Lahore 656 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-18Read full judgment →
- WAZIR ALI vs GOVERNMENT OP SIND AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 742 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged an order by the Director-General, Excise & Taxation, which revised a previous revisional order regarding the gross annual rental value of the petitioner's property, and also contested the imposition of a betterment tax. The core legal questions were whether a second revision of a tax assessment is permissible and whether the betterment tax imposed under the Sind Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, is unconstitutional due to lack of specific benefit, discrimination, or double taxation. The Court held that a second revision of an order already passed in revision is without lawful authority and jurisdiction. Regarding the betterment tax, the Court held that the Provincial Legislature has sovereign power to levy taxes within its legislative competence, and such tax does not require a specific benefit to the property owner. Furthermore, the classification distinguishing commercial and industrial properties from residential ones for taxation purposes is reasonable and not discriminatory under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The principle established is that the legislature may classify properties for taxation, and double taxation is not constitutionally prohibited.
Questions settled- Is a second revision of an order passed in revision by a competent authority maintainable under the Sind Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958?
- Does the imposition of a betterment tax require a specific benefit to the property assessed?
- Is the classification of commercial and industrial properties for the purpose of betterment tax discriminatory under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is there a constitutional prohibition against double taxation in Pakistan?
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER- Petitioners vs MESSRS ABDUR RAZZAQ MUHAMMAD IQBAL- Plaintiff1977 PLD Lahore 5 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-16Read full judgment →
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGFI ITS CHAIRMAN, LAHORE vs COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION & AUTHORITY, LAHORE AND ANOTF ER-s1977 PLD Lahore 1156 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- WASSAN AND 21 OTHERS vs HASSAN AND 6 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 429 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-07Read full judgment →
- WARD ALI KHAN AND ANOTHER vs MANAGING DTRECTOR, KARACHI ELECTRIC1977 PLC 214(2) · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1976-09-17Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 783 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-18Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND 7 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 556 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-20Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 302 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-21Read full judgment →
- WALI MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1977 PLD Lahore 390 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-28Read full judgment →
- WAHID BUX alias WAH1DU vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 257 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 filed to challenge proceedings initiated under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, along with the consequential issuance of non-bailable warrants by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tribunal, Sukkur. The core legal question was whether preventive proceedings and the issuance of warrants could be legally sustained on the basis of stale, untrialed past instances or a solitary single incident. The Sindh High Court held that the proceedings were without lawful authority, noting that the petitioner was not even challaned in earlier alleged instances and that action could not be founded on a single incident or unsubstantiated past cases. The court accordingly quashed the impugned orders and allowed the petition, establishing that statutory preventive action under the Act requires proper legal foundation and cannot rely on isolated or unprosecuted events.
Questions settled- Can proceedings under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 be initiated on the basis of a solitary or single incident?
- Whether a tribunal can issue a non-bailable warrant immediately upon receipt of a complaint without applying its mind to the statutory requirements?
- Are proceedings initiated without proper foundation and unprosecuted past instances liable to be quashed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- WAHEEDUDDIN vs ALLAH DITTA AND 5 Other1977 SCMR 72 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a High Court judgment that acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, and 323/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically the ocular testimony and the dying declaration, in light of significant discrepancies and improvements made during the trial. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecution witnesses were partisan and had deliberately embellished their accounts to fill lacunae. Furthermore, the Court held that the dying declaration was suspect because it was recorded at a police station in the presence of interested relatives rather than by a Magistrate. The Court affirmed the principle that appellate courts should not interfere with acquittals unless the judgment is perverse or unreasonable. It emphasized that dying declarations made in the presence of police and relatives are inherently less credible, and that material improvements in testimony undermine the overall veracity of the prosecution's case. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a dying declaration recorded at a police station in the presence of interested relatives considered reliable?
- What is the evidentiary value of ocular testimony that has been materially improved or embellished during the trial?
- Under what circumstances should an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?