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.

• WAHAJUDDIN AND Another MEHR KHAN Mst. RAZIABEGUM vs Mst. RAZIA1977 SCMR 260 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• WAHAD BAKHSH AND Another vs The STATE1977 SCMR 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-11-20
  escape from lawful custodyacquittalre-appraisal of evidencecriminal appealunproved documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the High Court setting aside the acquittal of the appellants under section 224 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency and legality of evidence relied upon by the High Court to reverse an acquittal for escaping from lawful custody, particularly where material documents and inspection notes were unproved and defense witnesses were left un-cross-examined. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in relying on unproved inspection notes and remand orders, failing to discuss prosecution evidence adequately, and ignoring unchallenged defense testimony. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and discharged the appellants from their bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court must properly evaluate the evidence on record and cannot base a conviction for escaping lawful custody on inadmissible or unproved documents while ignoring un-cross-examined defense evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can rely on unproved inspection notes to reverse an acquittal?
  • Is it necessary for the prosecution to prove lawful custody and escape beyond reasonable doubt in a charge under Section 224 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • What is the evidentiary value of defense witnesses whose testimony is left un-cross-examined by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• WAH STONE AND LIME QUARRY LTD., HASSAN ABDAL vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND1977 PLD Karachi 497 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-01Read full judgment →
• Ust. SHAMSHAD BEGUM vs ABDUL HAQUE alias NAWAZ AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 855 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-12
  Khuladissolution of marriageFamily Court decreeconsideration for KhulaMuslim Family Lawconstitutional jurisdictiondower
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought to challenge a condition imposed by a Family Court in a decree for dissolution of marriage by way of Khula, which required her to pay Rs. 5,000 to the respondent. The petitioner argued that this condition was contrary to Muslim Law principles and illegal. The core legal question was whether the Family Court lawfully determined the consideration for Khula and whether such a conditional decree was sustainable. The High Court held that the Family Court’s determination of the Rs. 5,000 consideration was based on invalid grounds, including unsupported surmises regarding ornaments and irrelevant considerations like the husband's future marriage expenses. The Court affirmed that while Khula may involve consideration, it must align with Islamic legal principles, specifically noting that if Khula arises from the husband's ill-treatment, he cannot lawfully demand consideration. Furthermore, the Court clarified that failure to pay the consideration does not invalidate the Khula itself, as the husband may recover the amount through other legal means. Consequently, the Court quashed the condition regarding the payment of consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Family Court impose a condition of monetary payment for a Khula decree based on speculative future expenses of the husband?
  • Does the failure of a wife to pay the consideration fixed for a Khula decree invalidate the dissolution of the marriage?
  • Is a husband entitled to demand consideration for Khula if the divorce is necessitated by his own ill-treatment of the wife?
  • Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to set aside a condition in a Family Court decree that is based on patent illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• URIS vs TRIBUNAL AND SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOTRI AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 506 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-05
  Sind Crimes Control Actcognizance of casepolice reportdetention ordertribunal jurisdictionmandatory provisionsbad in law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions assailing proceedings initiated by a Tribunal under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, following police reports that merely reproduced statutory clauses without providing particulars of time, place, or specific acts. The core legal question is whether a police report under section 4 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 must contain the specific particulars outlined in section 6 of the Act, and whether a Tribunal can validly take cognizance upon a report lacking such details. The Sindh High Court held that the Tribunal's cognizance and subsequent proceedings were illegal and without lawful authority because the report failed to provide the mandatory material and details of the acts complained against. The court laid down the principle that taking cognizance requires proper material in writing indicating a case under the Act, and a mere reproduction of statutory clauses without supporting instances or particulars does not furnish a valid legal foundation for the Tribunal to assume jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Tribunal can validly take cognizance under section 4 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 upon a police report that merely reproduces statutory clauses without detailing specific acts, times, and places?
  • Does the omission of particulars in a police report under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 vitiate the cognizance taken by the Tribunal?
  • Are the particulars specified in section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 required to form part of a report for taking cognizance?
  Read full judgment →
• UNITED TEXTILE MILLS LTD., FAZALABAD, MULTAN vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND 71977 PLC 391 · Labour Court · 1975-05-23Read full judgment →
• UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI vs Qazi AMIR ALI1977 PLD Karachi 905 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-10Read full judgment →
• UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI vs K. S. KAMAL1977 PLD Karachi 521 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-10Read full judgment →
• UMAR DIN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 3 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-22Read full judgment →
• UMAR DARAZ KHAN vs THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB,.1977 PLD Lahore 1102 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• TYKE STATE vs StilLEMAN HOODBHOY AND 2 omens1977 P Cr. L J 639 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-16Read full judgment →
• TRAVEL AIR LTD. vs THE DIRECTOR, EXCHANGE CONTROL DEPARTMENT, STATE1977 PLD Karachi 785 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-10Read full judgment →
• Tian COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE vs MESSRS PAK CINEMAS Like, LAHORE1977 PLD Lahore 1053 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE STATE vs YUSUF ALI KHAN, BAR-AT-LAW1977 PLD Lahore 456 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-24Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Shaikh IFTIKHARUDDIN1977 PLD Rev. 30 · Board of Revenue · 1976-09-20Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs RASOOL BUX1977 PLD Rev. 32 · Board of Revenue · 1976-10-29Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs RAB NAWAZ1977 PLD Lahore 1063 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-04Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Qazi MUHAMMAD TUFAIL1977 PLD Lahore 486 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-04
  contempt of courtillegal detentionunqualified apologypurge of contemptdepartmental disqualificationhabeas corpuspolice misconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns contempt of court proceedings initiated against a police officer (S.H.O.) for illegal detention of individuals and misleading the High Court during habeas corpus proceedings. The core legal question was whether the accused, having committed contempt by detaining persons and providing false statements, should be punished or discharged following his subsequent conduct. The court held that the accused’s submission of an unqualified apology, his plea of guilty, and his voluntary compensation to the victims demonstrated genuine contrition and a desire to purge the contempt. Consequently, the court accepted the apology and discharged the accused, emphasizing that his courageous admission upheld the court's dignity. The court further directed that this discharge should not result in any departmental disqualification or disability for the officer, considering his long service record and the fact that he had reformed. The key principle established is that a sincere, unqualified apology coupled with a plea of guilty and restitution to the aggrieved party can justify the discharge of a contemner, thereby maintaining the court's authority while allowing for mercy.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court discharge a contemner who tenders an unqualified apology and pleads guilty?
  • Does an unconditional discharge in contempt proceedings prevent departmental disqualification for a government servant?
  • Can the satisfaction of the aggrieved party influence the court's decision in contempt proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Nawab AHMED ALI KHAN1977 PLD Rev. 16 · Board of Revenue · 1976-08-23Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD SHAH AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 484 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-16Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD IBRAUIM1977 PLD Rev. 22 · Board of Revenue · 1976-10-04Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD DIN AND OTHERS1977 PLD Rev. 48 · Board of Revenue · 1977-03-25Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD AZIMUDDIN AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 674 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-17Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD ARIFAccused1977 P Cr. L J 208 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-07Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Mst. DURAN KHATOON AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Rev. 39 · Board of Revenue · 1976-10-14Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MOINUDDIN HAIDER AND 2 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 512 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-16Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Mirza MUHAMMAD IQBAL BAIG1977 P Cr. L J 432 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-11Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Mir MAULA BAKHSH AND OTHERS1917 PLD Rev. 34 · Board of Revenue · 1976-08-12Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MAJID NIZAMI, EDITOR, PRINTER, THE DAILY NAWA-I-WAQT, LAHORE1977 PLD Lahore 490 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-30Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs LAND OWNERS OF VILLAGE MANGAT, TEHSIL PHALIA, DISTRICT1977 PLD Rev. 1 · Board of Revenue · 1976-11-18Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs HAMZO1977 PLD Karachi 138 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-17Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs HAMAYOON SHAFI1977 P Cr. L J 553 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-01Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Haji GHULAM MUSTAFA KHAN AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Rev. 20 · Board of Revenue · 1976-11-19Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs HAJI AHMAD1977 PLD Rev. 28 · Board of Revenue · 1976-08-20Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs DHANI BUX1977 PLD Rev. 37 · Board of Revenue · 1976-08-31Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs DEVRAJ1977 P Cr. L J 357 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-14Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs BASHIR AHMAD1977 PLD Lahore 340 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-12Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ALI HUSSAIN1977 P Cr. L J 352 · Sindh High Court · 1973-07-17Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ALI AHMED1977 PLD Rev. 25 · Board of Revenue · 1976-08-20Read full judgment →
• The STATE vs ABDUL HALEEM1977 P Cr. L J 525 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-13Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ABDUL GHANI1977 P Cr. L J 822 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-13Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ABDUL AZIZ AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 192 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-11Read full judgment →
• THE NEW JHELUM TRANSPORT CO. LTD., (IN LIQUIDATION), JHELUM vs Malik1977 PLD Lahore 217 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-15Read full judgment →
• THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC RADIO, REFRIGERATION Co. (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI1977 PLD Karachi 264 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-18
  bill of ladingcarriage of goods by seacargo damage claimmarine insurance policyKarachi Port Trustex-parte survey reportclean out-turn reportproof of damages
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit was instituted by a consignee seeking recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 1,28,398 for alleged damage caused to a consignment of refrigerators imported from Italy to Karachi. The claim was brought against the sea carrier, its local shipping agent, the cargo insurer, and the Karachi Port Trust (KPT). The central questions pertained to whether the carrier or KPT were liable for damage occurring during transit or custody, whether the insurer was bound to extend coverage beyond the 60-day post-discharge period, and whether the carrier was bound by an ex-parte survey report. The High Court dismissed the suit in its entirety. It held that the carrier was not bound by a survey report conducted at the plaintiff's godown without prior notice to the carrier. Furthermore, clean discharge receipts and out-turn reports rebutted allegations of damage during sea transit or KPT custody. Additionally, the insurance policy had lapsed after 60 days from discharge, and delay in custom clearance did not extend coverage. Finally, the plaintiff failed to prove actual damages.

  Questions settled

  • Is a sea carrier bound by a damage survey report conducted without notice to the carrier after the goods have been removed from port custody?
  • Does an endorsement on a bill of lading stating 'contents unknown' create any presumption regarding the condition of goods inside outer packaging?
  • Can delay in custom clearance by an importer extend the period of coverage under a standard marine cargo insurance policy?
  • Whether secondary evidence of a notice is admissible under Section 65 of the Evidence Act 1872 without issuing notice to produce the original?
  Read full judgment →
• THE LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LAHORE THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN vs COL.1977 SCMR 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  land acquisitionsupplementary awardtime-barred objectionsreference to tribunaltown improvement
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by special leave directed against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore. The core matter involves land acquisition proceedings under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 and the Land Acquisition Act, wherein a supplementary award concerning the respondents' land was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector. The respondents filed objections against the award, which the Collector dismissed as time-barred for not being presented within six months, refusing to refer them to the Tribunal. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, counsel for the respondents stated they no longer wished to challenge the validity of the award, and with the consent of the parties, the objections had already been referred to and decided by the tribunal. Consequently, the Supreme Court noted that the award remained in the field and the objections had been duly disposed of by the tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether objections against a land acquisition award can be treated as barred by time if not presented within six months of the making of the award?
  • Can a Land Acquisition Collector refuse to refer objections to the Tribunal for adjudication?
  • What is the effect when objections to an award are referred to and decided by the tribunal with the consent of parties during the pendency of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• THE GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SANGEAR AND 2 OTHERS vs HAB1BULLAH1977 PLD Karachi 829 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-27Read full judgment →
• THE GENERAL. MANAGER, HEAVY MECHANICAL COMPLEX, TAXILA vs MR.1977 PLC 532 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-22Read full judgment →
• THE GENERAL MANAGER. HEAVY MECHANICAL COMPLEX, TAXILA vs MR.1977 PLD Lahore 998 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-21
  essential servicespower to regulatemaster and servantdismissal from serviceinquiryspecified authorityjurisdictiondiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal addresses whether the specified authority under Section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 possesses the jurisdiction to entertain and decide individual employee grievances and dismissal cases as an appellate or revisional authority. The respondent employees were dismissed from service for misconduct without statutory inquiries, and they successfully challenged their dismissals before the specified authority (National Industrial Relations Commission member/Chairman). The appellant employer challenged this through writ petitions, which were dismissed by a learned Single Judge who upheld the authority's jurisdiction. Upon appeal, the Lahore High Court held that the power to 'regulate' wages and terms and conditions under Section 6 of the Act is a legislative and rule-making power to issue general regulations, rules, or policies, and does not extend to adjudicating individual disputes or substituting for the Labour Court without framing prior regulations or obtaining necessary Central Government sanctions. However, because most employees were denied their fundamental right to an inquiry, the court declined to exercise discretionary constitutional jurisdiction to set aside the relief granted to them, except in one case where an inquiry was duly conducted. The appeals were consequently dismissed in part and accepted in part.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power to 'regulate' under Section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 include the power to decide individual cases of dismissal or termination?
  • Can a specified authority act as an appellate or revisional forum in place of the Labour Court without framing general regulations and rules?
  • Whether the exclusion of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance and Trade Unions Act under Section 7-A of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 automatically substitutes the specified authority for the Labour Court?
  • Should a constitutional writ petition be refused if granting it would perpetuate an original illegal order where no inquiry was held against an employee?
  Read full judgment →
• THE DIN AND 3 Others vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 933 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-27Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER. OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE vs MESSRS KOHINOOR1977 PLD Lahore 96 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-04Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, RAWALPINDI vs MESSRS SAJJAD NABI DAR1977 PLD Lahore 75 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-06
  sales taxrefundimplied agencyfunctus officiotimber merchanttax referencefiduciary obligation
  Summary & questions settled

  This tax reference case concerns the entitlement of an assessee, a timber merchant, to claim a refund of sales tax collected from customers on timber sales and previously deposited into the central exchequer. The core legal question was whether an assessee who collects an amount specifically as sales tax from third parties, acting as a purported or implied agent of the government, is entitled to claim its refund from the state after payment. The Lahore High Court held in the negative, ruling that once the collected tax was paid to the exchequer, the assessee's implied agency concluded, making them functus officio with no lawful right to retain or reclaim the amount from the state. The court laid down the principle that money collected under the guise of sales tax from customers is received in a fiduciary capacity for the government, and the collector cannot subsequently dispute the principal's claim or seek a refund of funds properly remitted to the state treasury.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an assessee is entitled to a refund of sales tax collected from customers separately and paid to the state?
  • Does an agent who receives money on behalf of a principal have the right to retain or reclaim it?
  • At what point does an implied agency for collecting sales tax come to an end?
  Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI vs MESSRS BATALA COTTON GINNING, PRESSING & GENERAL MILLS, LYALLPUR1977 PLD Lahore 1171 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE vs MESSRS1977 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-08Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE vs MESSRS COLONY TEXTILE1977 PLD Lahore 83 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-31Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INVESTIGATION), LAHORE vs MESSRS1977 PLD Lahore 184 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-27Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE ZONE LAHORE vs Messrs TAJ1977 SC M R328 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  income taxdepreciation rateplant and machineryIncome-tax Rulesassessment yearnewspaper production planttax reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act 1922 regarding the rate of depreciation allowable on printing plant and machinery. The assessee, engaged in printing religious books, claimed depreciation at 10% under Rule 8(2) Clause III(3)M of the Income-tax Rules for 'newspaper production plant and machinery'. The Income-tax Officer and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal restricted depreciation to 7% under the general Clause III(1), reasoning that the rate depended on the nature of the concern or the purpose for which the machinery was used, rather than the class of machinery itself. The High Court answered the reference against the revenue, holding the assessee entitled to 10% depreciation. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that Clause III(3) applies to specific classes of plant and machinery irrespective of the nature of the concern or the particular purpose to which they are put. Since the machinery indisputably belonged to the class of newspaper production plant and machinery, 10% depreciation was correctly allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rate of depreciation under Rule 8(2) Clause III(3) of the Income-tax Rules is determined by the class of machinery itself or by the nature of the concern using it?
  • Whether an assessee using newspaper production plant and machinery to print religious books rather than newspapers is entitled to depreciation under Clause III(3)M of the Income-tax Rules?
  Read full judgment →
• TARIQ SAYEED AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 PLD Karachi 235 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-24Read full judgment →
• TALIB vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 796 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-27Read full judgment →
• TALIB HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 940 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-25Read full judgment →
• T. I. P. LTD., KARACHI vs FIRST SIND LABOUR COURT AND Other1977 SCMR 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-06-05
  Payment of Wages Actad hoc reliefNational Pay Scalesdeduction from wagesoption of pay scalesprivate company employeesindustrial agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises out of a dispute regarding the fixation of wages and alleged deduction of ad hoc relief under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The core legal questions involve whether the employees, who were governed by private agreements and company directives rather than government servant rules, experienced an unlawful deduction from their wages when National Pay Scales were implemented, and whether petitions under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act were maintainable. The Supreme Court held that since the government rules and instructions regarding ad hoc relief and pay scales did not apply to the respondents, and because the employees voluntarily opted for the new National Pay Scales introduced by company directive without any improper fixation, no unlawful deduction of wages had occurred. Consequently, the employees were not entitled to relief under the Payment of Wages Act. The key principle laid down is that where employees' remuneration and benefits are governed by private industrial agreements and specific management directives rather than statutory government rules, claims regarding wage deductions must be assessed strictly in accordance with those governing instruments and the terms of voluntary option.

  Questions settled

  • Whether government rules and instructions regarding ad hoc relief and pay scales apply to employees of a private company governed by bilateral agreements and company directives?
  • Does the implementation of National Pay Scales pursuant to a company directive and voluntary employee option constitute an unlawful deduction from wages under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  • Can employees who have voluntarily opted for new pay scales subsequently claim separate ad hoc relief contrary to the terms of the company directive?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed SHAHBAZ HASSAN vs Syed MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND Other1977 SCMR 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-23
  pre-emptionostensible exchangesale disguised as exchangeburden of proofcircumstantial evidenceright of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit filed by the appellant challenging a land transfer ostensibly structured as an exchange, claiming it was in reality a sale intended to defeat his preferential right of pre-emption as an heir. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the High Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the plaintiff's evidence merely raised suspicions rather than proof. Upon a grant of leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined the circumstantial evidence, notably that the exchange deed and a simultaneous sale deed of the acquired land to third parties were presented and registered together, with the vendor receiving cash directly without ever possessing the exchange land. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent transactions constituted parts of a single scheme and that the circumstantial evidence sufficiently shifted the onus of proof onto the respondents, which they failed to discharge. The Court concluded that the transaction was indeed a sale masked as an exchange to defeat pre-emption, and accordingly allowed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ostensible exchange of land can be treated as a sale for the purpose of pre-emption when executed simultaneously with the sale of the acquired land to third parties?
  • When does circumstantial evidence regarding simultaneous registration of transfer deeds shift the onus of proof to the defendants in a pre-emption suit?
  • Can suspicion arising from the interconnected nature of land transfer transactions be sufficient to displace the burden of proof regarding the real nature of a transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed SHAFI-UN-NABI vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAWALPINDI AND ANOTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 600 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-09Read full judgment →
• Syed RASHIDULLAH SHAH AND OTHERS vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL1977 PLD Karachi 1061 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT1977 PLD Lahore 924 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed NAZAKAT RAZA vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 694 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-13Read full judgment →
• Syed MUJAHID HUSSAIN vs PAKISTAN SECURITY PRINTING CORPORATION, KARACHI1977 PLC 673 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-11-21Read full judgment →
• Syed MUJAHID HUSSAIN vs PAKISTAN SECURITY PRINTING CORPORATION LTD, KARACHI1977 PLC 273 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-11-21Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD YOUSAF SHAH vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, AZAD1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 105 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1977-04-05Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD SIBTAIN vs WEST PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, MUZAFFARGARH1977 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-04-19
  contractual disputegovernment contractorcivil appealleave to appealmaintainability of appealinterpretation of contractevidence evaluation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a contractual dispute between a government contractor and the Province of West Pakistan regarding payment for the supply of 'pilchi' for river diversion works. The appellant claimed payment for materials supplied in 'compacted mattress' form, while the respondent contended the supply was in 'loose roll' form, which carried a lower rate. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the appeal under the 1962 Constitution, which the Court resolved by granting leave to appeal. On the merits, the Court examined the evidence, including measurement books and witness testimony, to determine the form of the supplied material. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, finding that the evidence consistently supported the conclusion that the pilchi was supplied in 'loose roll' form rather than 'compacted mattress' form. Consequently, the Court held that the appellant was entitled only to the rates applicable to loose rolls, plus the specified rate for roll-making, and dismissed the appeal, affirming the final accounting performed by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal filed under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require special leave to appeal under Article 58 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962?
  • Are tentative running payments made to a contractor subject to final accounting upon the completion of the contract?
  • Can a court rely on witness testimony and measurement books to determine the specific form of materials supplied under a government work order?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, QUETTA AND ANOTHER- Respondents1977 PLD Quetta 17 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-04-26Read full judgment →
• Syed JAMSHED ALI JAFFERI vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANAULLAH1977 PLC 218 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
• Syed IQBAL HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND 29 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 702 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-03Read full judgment →
• Syed HASANAT AHMED vs NASIM AHMAD, SECRETARY INFORMATION, PAKISTAN1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 80 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-08-11Read full judgment →
• Syed GHULAM ALI SHAH vs COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD DIVISION, HYDERABAD AND 4 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 112 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-28Read full judgment →
• SYED BROTHERS, LAHORE vs DISTRICT COUNCIL, LYALLPUR AND ANOTHER-s1977 PLD Lahore 542 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-26
  execution of decreeauction-purchasedeposit of purchase moneymandatory provisionsnullity of saleexecution first appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Execution First Appeal arose from execution proceedings in which an ex parte decree was passed against the appellant, leading to the attachment and auction-sale of a bungalow. The core legal questions involved whether the provisions of Order XXI, rules 84, 85, and 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the deposit of auction-purchase money are mandatory, whether the executing Court had the jurisdiction to extend the time for deposit without the consent of parties, and whether an auction confirmed prior to the deposit is a nullity. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of rules 85 and 86 are mandatory, and a court has no jurisdiction to unilaterally extend the statutory period for deposit or confirm the sale before the full purchase money is deposited, rendering such orders null and void. The key principle laid down is that the mandatory timelines for depositing auction-purchase money cannot be bypassed by court acts unless agreed upon by the decree-holder and judgment-debtor, and any sale conducted in violation thereof is a nullity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Order XXI, rules 85 and 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the deposit of purchase money are mandatory?
  • Can an executing court extend the time for depositing the auction-purchase money without the mutual consent of the decree-holder and judgment-debtor?
  • Does an order confirming an auction-sale prior to the deposit of the full purchase money render the sale a nullity?
  • Can an auction-purchaser claim immunity from delay caused by a court's erroneous order indefinitely without applying the principle of reasonable time?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed ASHIQ HUSSAIN SHAH vs CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., JARANWALA1977 PLC 569 · Labour Court · 1975-10-20Read full judgment →
• Syed ALI NAWAZ vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND 6 OTHER1977 SCMR 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-04-22
  consolidation of holdingsminorguardian ad litemnatural guardianprocedural irregularityBoard of Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from consolidation proceedings initiated in 1962. The core legal question was whether an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, was binding upon the appellant, who was a minor at the time of the proceedings and for whom no formal guardian ad litem had been appointed under the relevant rules. The appellant contended that under Rule 25 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1960, the failure to appoint a guardian vitiated the order. The Supreme Court observed that the appointment of a guardian under the rule is discretionary. It found that the appellant's father, acting as a natural guardian, was aware of the revision proceedings and had filed a power of attorney on the minor's behalf. Furthermore, the adjustments ordered by the Member, Board of Revenue, resulted in the appellant retaining his original land. Consequently, the Court held that the absence of a formally appointed guardian did not invalidate the order, as the minor's interests were adequately protected by his natural guardian. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the appointment of a guardian ad litem for a minor under Rule 25 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Rules 1960 mandatory or discretionary?
  • Does the failure to formally appoint a guardian ad litem for a minor in consolidation proceedings automatically vitiate the order if the minor's interests were represented by a natural guardian?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed AKHTAR HUSSAIN vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION, KARACHI1977 PLC 256 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-11-16Read full judgment →
• Syed AKHLAQUE HUSSAIN AND Another vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT1977 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-02-23
  amendment of plaintimpleadment of partyjoint liabilitycause of actionbona fidesadministration of justicerevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave arose from an order of the Lahore High Court, which accepted a revision petition filed by the respondent, Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), and set aside a trial court order allowing the appellants to amend their plaint to implead WAPDA as a co-defendant in a suit for damages. The core legal question was whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the amendment of the plaint to add a joint liability claim and implead WAPDA. The Supreme Court held that procedural rules governing the amendment of pleadings must serve the administration of justice and be liberally exercised. Amendments necessary to determine the real question in controversy between parties should generally be allowed, provided they do not substitute an entirely distinct cause of action or cause undue injury to the opposing party. Reversing the High Court's order and restoring that of the trial court, the Supreme Court ruled that allegations of joint liability raised factual issues for trial, and the High Court erred in deeming the application mala fide.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances should a trial court liberally allow an application for amendment of a plaint?
  • Does an amendment of pleadings that introduces factual allegations of joint liability alter the fundamental cause of action?
  • Can a High Court set aside an order allowing an amendment of plaint without evidence showing mala fides or prejudice to the opposing party?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed AKBAR ALI BOKHARI vs STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 7 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 234 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-31
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionmaster and servantessential servicedisciplinary proceedingsnatural justiceState Bank of Pakistanpublic office
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the dismissal of the petitioner, an Assistant Treasurer of the State Bank of Pakistan, following disciplinary proceedings for gross misconduct and breach of office procedure regarding prize bonds. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that the State Bank of Pakistan is not a 'person' performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation and that the employment is governed strictly by the law of master and servant. The Lahore High Court repelled these objections, holding that the State Bank of Pakistan is a body corporate and a 'person' within the meaning of Article 199(5), performs sovereign and federal functions connected with currency and banking, and that its employment is subject to statutory regulations and the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952, which ousts the simple theory of master and servant. On merits, the court held that the petitioner was afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity of defense conforming to the rules of natural justice, and any alleged procedural defects in the inquiry were cured when the punishing authority granted a personal hearing and opportunity to lead evidence. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the State Bank of Pakistan is a 'person' performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation within the contemplation of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the doctrine of master and servant apply to the employees of the State Bank of Pakistan when its services are declared essential under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952?
  • Whether procedural defects in a departmental inquiry stand cured if the punishing authority grants a personal hearing and a fresh opportunity to lead defense to the delinquent employee?
  • To what extent can a High Court re-assess evidence and examine factual findings in its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed AHMADUDDIN vs SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT JAIL, LAHORE AND 2 Others1977 P Cr. L J 415 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-01Read full judgment →
• SUNSHINE DIARIES LTD. vs COMMISSIONER. SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY1977 PLC 145 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-20Read full judgment →
• SULTAN vs WALI DAD AND 3 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 968 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-11Read full judgment →
• SULTAN ALI vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 12 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-22Read full judgment →
• SULTAN AHMAD GEELANI vs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD.1977 PLC 558 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1977-01-02Read full judgment →
• SULTAN AHMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs The STATE1977 P Cr. L J 508 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-13Read full judgment →
• SULEMAN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 406 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-11Read full judgment →
• SUI GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY vs SUI GAS EMPLOYEES UNION AND Other1977 SCMR 220 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-10-04
  interim injunctionprima facie caseworkmanindustrial disputetemporary injunctionbalance of convenience
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an interim order passed by the High Court refusing to grant a temporary injunction to the plaintiff-appellant, Sui Gas Transmission Co. Ltd., which sought to restrain the defendants, who are Junior Executives, from becoming members of the Sui Gas Employees' Union. The core legal question concerns the principles governing the grant of interim injunctions and whether the defendants fall within the definition of 'workmen' or 'employers' under the law. The Supreme Court held that the learned Judge in the High Court erred in his approach by failing to properly determine whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case based on the pleadings, having been improperly influenced by vague objections to the maintainability of the suit. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by setting specific interim conditions and directing the High Court to expedite and conclude the trial of the suit within a fixed timeframe. The key principle laid down is that in dealing with an application for an interim injunction, the primary consideration is whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case by raising a serious question of fact or law on the face of the plaint.

  Questions settled

  • What is the primary consideration when dealing with an application for an interim injunction?
  • Whether an objection to the maintainability of a suit can defeat an interim injunction without a legal defect appearing on the face of the plaint?
  • Do Junior Executives performing supervisory duties fall within the definition of workmen under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Sufi JAN MUHAM MAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 597 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-27Read full judgment →
• Sufi GHULAM NABI AND another vs MUHAMMAD DIN AND others1977 P Cr. L J 692 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-08Read full judgment →
• SUBA vs SIRAJ DIN1977 PLD Lahore 1263 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-27
  ejectmentpersonal requirementown occupationcharitable dispensaryresidential buildingnon-residential buildingWest Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from an order of the District Judge, Gujranwala, upholding the Rent Controller's eviction order against a tenant occupying residential premises. The landlord sought ejectment under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 on grounds of default and personal requirement to establish a charitable free dispensary. The Rent Controller and District Judge ruled in favor of the landlord on the ground of personal requirement. The tenant appealed to the High Court. The core legal questions were whether setting up a charitable free dispensary constituted trade or business converting a residential building to non-residential, and whether establishing such a dispensary fell under 'own occupation' for personal need under Section 13(3)(a)(i). The High Court held that trade or business implies an activity aimed at earning profit or livelihood, which excludes charitable distribution of free medicines. However, the Court ruled that setting up a public charitable dispensary does not constitute 'own occupation' for personal residence, as personal need must pertain to residential occupation for the landlord or their immediate dependents. The High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the eviction application.

  Questions settled

  • Does operating a charitable free dispensary constitute a trade or business under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Can a landlord evict a tenant from a residential building to set up a public charitable dispensary under the ground of personal requirement and own occupation?
  • What constitutes 'own occupation' for personal requirement under Section 13(3)(a) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• SUB. MAJOR (Rm.) ANAR BADSHAH vs MOHSIN ALI KHAN1977 PLD Peshawar 33 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-06-16Read full judgment →
• STATE vs MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND 3 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 554 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-09Read full judgment →
• STATE vs CHUTTAL alias CHUTTO AND 4 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 960 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-07Read full judgment →
• STATE vs BUDO alias BADAL1977 P Cr. L J 954 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-12Read full judgment →
• SOUVENIR TOBACCO CO. LTD. vs NAJAMMUDDIN AND OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 250 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-22
  reinstatementcanteen employeeCanteen Managing Committeeemployer-employee relationshipindustrial relationsconstitutional petitionlabor dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner company against orders of the Junior Labour Court and Labour Court which reinstated respondent No. 1, a canteen worker, with full back benefits under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The core legal question was whether an employee of a factory canteen, managed and controlled by a Canteen Managing Committee under the Karachi Factories Canteen Rules 1953 and a settlement agreement, can be considered an employee of the factory management itself for the purpose of seeking reinstatement. The High Court held that the Canteen Managing Committee was exclusively responsible for the management and control of the canteen's affairs, and that respondent No. 1's services were terminated by said Committee and not the petitioner company. The High Court declared the impugned orders illegal and allowed the petition, establishing that reinstatement proceedings under labor laws cannot be maintained against a company for employees managed and terminated independently by a legally constituted Canteen Managing Committee.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee of a canteen managed by a Canteen Managing Committee under the Karachi Factories Canteen Rules 1953 can be considered an employee of the factory management for filing a grievance under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Can an application for reinstatement under labor laws be maintained against a factory owner when the order of termination was issued by an independent Canteen Managing Committee?
  Read full judgment →
• SOOMAR vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 70 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-21Read full judgment →
• SOOMAR AND 6 otherss vs THE STATE1977 PLD Karachi 18 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-18Read full judgment →
• SIRAJ UDDIN vs Mst. AMTUL RAUF AND 12 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 933 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-26
  partition suitadministration suitwithdrawal of suittransposition of partiesCode of Civil Procedureunconditional withdrawal
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed a suit for the partition of joint property inherited from the deceased. The defendant contested the suit, arguing it was essentially an administration suit and sought to be transposed as the plaintiff. Before issues were framed, the plaintiff applied to withdraw the suit unconditionally under Order XXIII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court held that the nature of a suit is determined by the plaint, not the defendant's pleadings. It distinguished between a partition suit, which seeks separate possession of shares, and an administration suit, which involves the comprehensive realization of assets and discharge of debts. The court affirmed that a plaintiff possesses an absolute right to withdraw a suit unconditionally at any time, provided no preliminary decree has been passed, no compromise exists, or no valuable rights have accrued to the defendant. As no such rights had vested in the defendant, and the suit was not in a representative capacity, the court allowed the withdrawal, dismissing the suit and rejecting the defendant's request for transposition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plaintiff have an absolute right to withdraw a suit unconditionally under Order XXIII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a suit for partition of inherited property equivalent to a suit for administration of the estate?
  • Can a defendant be transposed as a plaintiff as a matter of right in a partition suit?
  • Does the filing of an application for the appointment of a receiver create a valuable right that prevents a plaintiff from withdrawing a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• SIRAJ DIN vs NASEERUDDIN AND Another1977 SCMR 511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-15
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentwilful defaultappreciation of evidencepetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court dismissing the landlord's second appeal against the reversal of an ejectment order. The core legal question concerns whether the tenants committed a wilful default in the payment of rent and whether concurrent factual findings regarding the bona fides of the tenants and the refusal of the landlord to accept rent warrant interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the appreciation of evidence by the lower appellate court and the High Court is final and that findings of fact based on such appraisal will not be interfered with in a petition for leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court does not undertake a reappraisal of evidence to disturb concurrent factual findings regarding default where no legal infirmity is shown.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent factual findings regarding wilful default in rent payment?
  • Does the refusal of a landlord to accept rent justify the deposit of rent in court by the tenant?
  • Can a second appeal be entertained on the mere ground of incorrect appraisal of evidence by lower courts?
  Read full judgment →