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.
- SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, KARACHI vs PHILIPS1977 PLC 447 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-16Read full judgment →
- SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD1977 PLD Karachi 889 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-04Read full judgment →
- SIND EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, KARACHI vs PHILIPS1977 PLD Karachi 451 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two appeals under Section 64 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The primary legal issue was whether factory owners are liable to pay social security contributions under Section 20 for canteen and fair price shop workers engaged by independent contractors. Additionally, the court examined whether employees at a head office working in connection with a notified mill are covered, and whether statutory increase under Section 23 applies to retrospective arrears. The High Court held that workers employed by an independent contractor are not 'employees' of the factory owner because no direct or indirect contract of service exists between them, nor are wages paid by the owner. However, head office employees working directly in connection with the mill's manufacturing operations are covered irrespective of physical location, necessitating factual determination on remand. The court further held that the penalty increase under Section 23 requires willful default or neglect; hence, no penalty was leviable due to bona fide ambiguity and institutional delay.
Questions settled- Whether an establishment is liable under Section 20 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 to pay contributions for workers employed by an independent contractor to run a canteen or fair price shop?
- Does the application of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 to a factory establishment extend to head office staff working in connection with the factory's manufacturing work?
- Whether the statutory increase under Section 23 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 can be levied in the absence of intentional default or neglect by the employer?
- SIK A NDA R vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 81 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-24Read full judgment →
- SIDDIQUE vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 30 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-07Read full judgment →
- SHOUKAT ALI vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 690 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-07Read full judgment →
- SHIKARPUR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. vs ABDULLAH BAYO1977 PLC 703 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-10-15Read full judgment →
- SHER ZAMAN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 686 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-07Read full judgment →
- SHER ZAMAN KHAN vs NOOR ZAMAN KHAN AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 672 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a suit for possession of land where the parties had agreed to refer their dispute to a referee under Section 20 of the Evidence Act, with the understanding that the case would be decided based on the referee's statement. The referee, lacking personal knowledge, conducted a local inquiry, recorded evidence, and submitted a written report to the court instead of making a statement in court. Prior to this, the petitioner had applied to resile from the agreement, alleging collusion. The trial court and appellate court decreed the suit based on the report. The Lahore High Court accepted the revision petition, holding that a referee under Section 20 of the Evidence Act must make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief, rather than conducting a judicial inquiry and taking evidence like an arbitrator. Because the referee's report was functionally an award and he was not appointed as an arbitrator, and because the petitioner resiled before any statement was made in court, the courts below exceeded their jurisdiction by relying on the report.
Questions settled- What is the distinction between a referee under Section 20 of the Evidence Act and an arbitrator?
- Can a referee under Section 20 of the Evidence Act conduct a judicial inquiry and take evidence to make a report?
- Whether a party can resile from an agreement to refer a dispute to a referee before the referee's statement is made in court?
- Is a written report submitted by a referee, which is based on an inquiry and witness evidence, legally binding as a referee's statement under Section 20 of the Evidence Act?
- SHER MUHAMMAD/ vs GHULAM RASOOL1977 PLD Quetta 36 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-05-23Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 422 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-22Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 683 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-27Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-17Read full judgment →
- SHER MOHAMMAD vs ATTOCK OIL Co. LTD., MORGAH1977 PLC 362 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-05-30Read full judgment →
- SHER KHAN vs RAWALPINDI ELECTRIC & POWER Co. LTD.1977 PLC 560 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1976-09-22Read full judgment →
- SHER ALI vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, PESHAWAR1977 PLC 649 · Labour Court · 1977-02-14Read full judgment →
- SHER AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 513 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-31Read full judgment →
- SHEIKHUPURA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. THROUGH ITS HONORARY1977 PLD Lahore 763 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment of the Lahore High Court disposes of four connected Regular First Appeals arising from consolidated suits filed by the sons and daughters of Ch. Khushi Mohammad against the Sheikhupura Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. The plaintiffs sought to realize amounts held in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) standing in their individual or joint names, alleging the funds belonged to them. The defendant-Bank contested the suits, pleading that the deposits were benami, made by the father using his own funds, and that the bank was legally entitled to adjust these amounts against substantial loans taken by the father, which were also secured by the pledge of the said FDRs. The trial court decreed the suits in favour of the plaintiffs. Upon appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and held that the source of the funds was exclusively the father, that he retained full dominion over the accounts, and that no valid gifts were established, the plea of gift having been raised merely as an afterthought in the replications. The Court further held that the loans taken by the father and the pledges of the FDRs were duly proved by independent documentary evidence, notwithstanding the inadmissibility of a promissory note for improper stamp cancellation under the Stamp Act 1899. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the trial court decrees, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suits.
Questions settled- Whether a fixed deposit opened by a father in the name of his children with his own funds constitutes a valid gift or remains a benami transaction where the father retains dominion over the amount?
- Does the inadmissibility of a promissory note under the Stamp Act for improper stamp cancellation preclude a creditor from proving the underlying loan and debt through other independent documents and security pledges?
- Can a bank lawfully adjust deposits standing in the names of children against a loan taken by their father when the accounts are proven to be funded exclusively by the father and pledged as security?
- Whether an objection as to the mode of proving a document can be raised for the first time in appeal if no such objection was taken when the document was tendered and exhibited before the trial court?
- Sheikh SHABBIR HUSSAIN (REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS) vs ABDUL RAOOF AND OTHER1977 SCMR 287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the dismissal of a Letters Patent Appeal by the High Court, arising out of settlement proceedings regarding an evacuee house under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal questions involved whether the appeal had abated due to the death of the original appellant and failure to bring legal representatives on record within the prescribed period, and whether the High Court properly exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction regarding the mode of property division by settlement authorities. The Supreme Court held that the appeal had indeed abated as the legal heirs failed to apply within time without showing sufficient cause, and further held on merits that the division of property by the Settlement Commissioner based on actual possession was just and not arbitrary. The key principles laid down are that the mode of division of property is within the domain of statutory functionaries and superior courts will only interfere if the power is exercised without proper judicial discretion, and that failure to substitute legal representatives within the limitation period results in abatement unless sufficient cause is shown.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal abates when legal representatives fail to apply for being brought on the record within the prescribed period of limitation?
- Can the superior courts interfere with the mode of division of property determined by statutory settlement functionaries in the absence of a capricious or arbitrary exercise of power?
- Whether knowledge of pending litigation can be presumed against legal heirs residing in the same disputed property and possessing a registered will mentioning the litigation?
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD LATIF vs ALLAH YAR AND 18 OTHERS1977 PLD Rev. 8 · Board of Revenue · 1977-02-16Read full judgment →
- Sheikh ABDUL KARIM vs Mst. IRSHADUNNISA BEGUM AND 6 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 477 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-21Read full judgment →
- SHEEDON vs AHMAD KHAN AND 6 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 492 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-13Read full judgment →
- SHEDAR KHAN ARID 5 Other vs Messes MOONLIGHT SILK FACTORY, KARACHI1977 PLC 368 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-11-15Read full judgment →
- SHEDAR KHAN AND Other vs MOONLIGHT SILK FACTORY, KARACHI1977 PLC 695 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-11-15Read full judgment →
- SHEDAR KHAN AND 5 Other vs MOONLIGHT SILK FACTORY1977 PLC 502 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-11-15Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 259 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-13Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI vs DISTRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., LYALLPUR1977 PLC 121 · Punjab Labour Court · 1973-09-27Read full judgment →
- SHAMSUDDIN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 495 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-15Read full judgment →
- SHAMIR KHAN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 531 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-24Read full judgment →
- SHAMIM AHMED vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 67 · Sindh High Court · 1975-03-20Read full judgment →
- SHAISTA GUL AND 9 OTHERS vs QAZA KHAN AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Peshawar 74 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-05-25Read full judgment →
- SHAHZADA vs MESSRS ATLAS PLASTIC & RUBBER INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI1977 PLC 261 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-10-11Read full judgment →
- SHAHID AFZAL vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 117 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This intra-court appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition upholding the decertification of the motion picture 'Khatarnak' by the Central Government. The appellant, a film producer, had his film certified by the Censor Board, but it was later decertified under Rule 21 of the Censorship of Films Rules following allegations that uncertified, excised, and unauthorized material was exhibited. The core legal questions involved the scope of the statutory right to an 'opportunity of representing his case' under Rule 21(3), whether principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem apply to administrative and quasi-criminal proceedings resulting in penal consequences or deprivation of livelihood, and whether tribunals are under a duty to render a speaking order supported by reasons demonstrating conscious application of mind. The Lahore High Court held that proceedings under Rule 21 are quasi-criminal in nature, attracting strict standards of proof and the full protection of natural justice. The Court ruled that the authority must give prior adequate notice of all material considered, allow an opportunity to contest adverse evidence, and issue a speaking order containing reasons. As the Central Government acted mechanically on undisclosed material without proper appraisal or application of mind, the decertification notification was declared without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Does the statutory right to an opportunity of representing one's case under Rule 21(3) of the Censorship of Films Rules encompass the minimum requirements of natural justice and audi alteram partem?
- Are administrative or quasi-judicial tribunals empowered to impose penalties or affect livelihoods required to issue a speaking order containing reasons?
- Can a licensing authority base its adverse decision on extraneous material or evidence not disclosed to the affected party in the show-cause notice?
- Do proceedings for the decertification of a film under the Censorship of Films Act, 1963 constitute quasi-criminal proceedings requiring strict proof?
- SHAHEEN FLOUR & GENERAL MILLS (REGD.) vs THE PROVINCE OF WEST1977 P Cr. L J 314 · Lahore High Court · 1967-09-27Read full judgment →
- SHAHAB DIN AHD 5 OTHERS vs Ch. MUHAMMAD SIDDlUE AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 605 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-23Read full judgment →
- SHAH NAZAR KHAN vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND S. D. M., MALIR, KARACHI AND 3 (MIMS-s1977 PLD Karachi 582 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged proceedings initiated against the detenu under the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975, based on a police report alleging habitual illegal trafficking of charas. The core legal question was whether the isolated criminal cases and recovery incidents involving the detenu constituted sufficient grounds to bring him within the scope of habitual offences under section 14 of the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975, or whether they amounted merely to solitary unlawful acts better suited for ordinary criminal law. The court held that the allegations and instances relied upon did not establish a customary habit, persistent conduct, or general reputation as required by clause (xvii) of section 14 of the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975, thereby rendering the proceedings without jurisdiction. The key legal principles laid down include the definitions and distinctions between 'habit', 'habitually', and 'reputation' in preventive detention jurisprudence, establishing that solitary or isolated unlawful acts cannot substantiate a charge of being a habitual offender under the Act.
Questions settled- Whether isolated criminal acts are sufficient to establish the habit or reputation of a person under the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975?
- What constitutes 'habit' and 'habitually' in the context of preventive criminal laws?
- How is a person's general 'reputation' established for the purposes of proceedings under section 14 of the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975?
- Do proceedings under the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975 apply to solitary unlawful acts that fall under the ordinary criminal law?
- SHAH IQBAL vs The STATE1977 SC M R316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the enhancement of a sentence from life imprisonment to death by the High Court for a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether sectarian animosity, which motivated the murder, could be considered a mitigating circumstance warranting a lesser penalty. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the death sentence. The Court held that religious or sectarian zeal is not a mitigating or extenuating circumstance for murder; rather, it is an aggravating factor. The primary sentence for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is death, and a lesser sentence of life imprisonment is only appropriate where valid mitigating circumstances exist. The Court emphasized that it would be dangerous to suggest that murders committed for religious reasons should not result in the death penalty, unless committed under grave and sudden provocation. The conviction was affirmed based on eye-witness testimony, recovery of blood-stained clothing, and a retracted confession, all of which proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Does sectarian animosity or religious zeal constitute a mitigating circumstance for the offence of murder?
- Is the primary sentence for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 death?
- Can a High Court enhance a sentence of life imprisonment to death in a criminal appeal?
- SHAH DIN alias SHAKIA vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH HOME1977 P Cr. L J 795 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-10Read full judgment →
- SHAH BAZ KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, QUETTA AND 5 others1977 PLD Quetta 22 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenges the orders of the District Magistrate, Sibi and the Department of Education, Baluchistan, which cancelled the petitioner's domicile certificate and subsequently rejected his nomination for admission to the First Year Engineering Class at the University of Peshawar. The core legal question concerns the statutory procedure and lawful authority required for cancelling a domicile certificate once issued. The Balochistan High Court held that the District Magistrate acted without lawful authority by cancelling the domicile certificate in hot haste and without adhering to the mandatory statutory inquiry procedure outlined under the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952. The Court laid down that a domicile certificate cannot be suspended or cancelled arbitrarily or without following the due process and formal investigation mechanisms prescribed by law. The petition was accepted, declaring the impugned cancellation orders illegal, while leaving it open for the authorities to conduct a lawful inquiry if advised.
Questions settled- Whether a District Magistrate can cancel a domicile certificate once issued without following the procedure laid down under the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952?
- Does the cancellation of a domicile certificate without proper inquiry render the consequent administrative actions void and without lawful authority?
- What is the prescribed statutory procedure for investigating a domicile certificate alleged to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation?
- SHAFQAT ALI CHATTHA AND 2 Others vs The STATE1977 SCMR 271 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court convicting three appellants for contempt of court for fabricating police records to defeat a habeas corpus order for the recovery of a detenu. The core legal question involves determining whether the appellants committed contempt by obstructing the court bailiff and falsifying police station registers. The Supreme Court held that the conviction and sentence of the Station House Officer were justified to maintain the prestige of the court, while the conviction of the Moharar Assistant Sub-Inspector was set aside due to a lack of evidence showing his complicity in the fabrication. The key principle laid down is that acts designed to deliberately flout or defeat judicial orders, such as fabricating official police records during a court-ordered raid, constitute punishable contempt of court, and the appellate court will not interfere with contempt sentences unless there is a legal error or lack of evidence regarding specific individuals.
Questions settled- Whether the fabrication of police station records to frustrate a court-ordered habeas corpus recovery constitutes contempt of court?
- Can a police officer's conviction for contempt be sustained in the absence of evidence showing active complicity in the fraudulent act?
- Does the tendering of a belated unconditional apology automatically purge contempt where the accused aggravated the charge by filing false counter-reports?
- SHAFI AHMED vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 717 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-28Read full judgment →
- SHABBIRConvict vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 166 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-16Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1977 PLD Lahore 201 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-30Read full judgment →
- Sh. ZAHOOR AHMAD vs SHER ALI AND OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 852 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-24Read full judgment →
- Sh. SAEEDUDIN vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE- Respondent1977 PLD Lahore 1091 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-16Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD ALT vs MESSRS CHINA SILK HOUSE, LYALLPUR1977 PLD Karachi 736 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-28Read full judgment →
- Sh. FAZLUDDIN QURESHI vs MUHAMMAD HASAN ZUBERI1977 PLD Karachi 418 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-29Read full judgment →
- Sh. FAZAL ELAM vs ASSISTANT INCOMETAX OFFICER, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 538 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-01Read full judgment →
- Sh. AFZAL AHMAD vs IJAZ AHMAD AND 15 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 606 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-13Read full judgment →
- Sh. ABDUL AZIZ vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 304 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-03Read full judgment →
- SETHI STRAW BOARD MILLS LTD. vs PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No, 3, LYALLPUR1977 PLD Lahore 71 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by an employer challenging concurrent orders of the Junior Labour Court and Labour Court reinstating Respondent No. 3 with back benefits. The employer contended that the respondent failed to serve a mandatory grievance notice under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, fell under the definition of an employer rather than a workman due to delegated supervisory duties, and was estopped from claiming workman status after receiving officer-level benefits and settling accounts upon termination. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the lower decisions. The Court held that for service terminations governed by Section 25-A(6), prior grievance notice was not required. It further held that supervising a single shift rather than an entire establishment does not make an employee an employer under Section 2(c) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. Where an employee primarily performs manual duties, delegating secondary supervisory tasks does not divest him of workman status under Section 2(i). Lastly, there is no estoppel against a statute, and partial settlement of dues does not preclude claiming full statutory entitlements.
Questions settled- Whether a grievance notice under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance is required in cases of termination of service governed by Section 25-A(6)?
- Whether an employee entrusted with supervision and control of a single shift rather than the entire establishment qualifies as an employer under Section 2(c) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Whether the conferment of additional supervisory and managerial duties divests an employee who performs manual work of his character as a workman under Section 2(i) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Whether an employee is estopped from enforcing statutory rights as a workman by receiving benefits granted to officers or by giving a satisfaction note upon receiving partial dues?
- SCHINDLER FATEHALLY & MERIN LTD. vs SALES TAX OFFICER, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 232 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-21Read full judgment →
- SATTAR vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 859 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-05Read full judgment →
- SARWAR DIN vs GOVERNMENT OF N: W. V. P. AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLC (C. S. T.] 153 · Service Tribunal · 1971-02-27Read full judgment →
- SARWAR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 748 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-09Read full judgment →
- SARFRAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1085 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-11Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 740 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-15Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs SARWAR AND 5 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 594 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-15Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND 4 Others vs The STATE1977 SCMR 326 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's order rejecting the appellants' application for anticipatory bail in a criminal case registered under sections 148, 307, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellants, office-bearers of the Pakistan National Alliance, were accused of attempted murder following a political procession and subsequent altercation. The appellants argued that the prosecution was motivated by political malice, citing the improbability of the alleged design to kill and the inconsistency in the medical evidence regarding the single bullet injury sustained by the victim despite multiple assailants firing. The Supreme Court, while noting that it would be inappropriate to express a definitive opinion on the appellants' culpability or pre-empt the trial court's functions, determined that the circumstances warranted the grant of pre-arrest bail. The Court held that for the limited purpose of anticipatory bail, the appellants had made a sufficient case for relief. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellants were admitted to bail subject to furnishing security.
Questions settled- Is it appropriate for a court to express a definitive opinion on the culpability of an accused during the adjudication of an anticipatory bail application?
- Does the existence of political rivalry and allegations of malice constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of pre-arrest bail in cases of attempted murder?
- SARDAR KHAN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 634 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-11Read full judgment →
- Sardar HABIBULLAH KHAN vs PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND Other1977 SC M R321 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- Sardar ASHIQ MUHAMMAD KHAN MAZARI AND 3 OTHERS vs CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD AND 4 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 461 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by landlords challenging an order dated 13th August 1974 passed by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, which rejected their preliminary objections to revisional proceedings initiated under Martial Law Regulation 115 (Land Reforms Regulation, 1972). The core legal questions pertained to whether the Chairman sitting singly possessed jurisdiction to exercise revisional powers delegated to the 'Chairman and Members' of the Federal Land Commission; whether suo motu revisional powers could be exercised beyond the statutory limitation period on an application by an aggrieved person; and whether public speeches by the Chairman demonstrated disqualifying bias. The High Court held that delegating revisional authority under paragraph 29 to the 'Chairman and Members' required collective exercise, rendering orders passed by the Chairman sitting singly devoid of jurisdiction. Furthermore, revisional jurisdiction initiated upon an aggrieved person's application after the limitation period cannot be converted into a suo motu exercise. Lastly, public statements by an adjudicating authority targeting specific parties create a reasonable apprehension of bias, violating principles of natural justice. The petition was allowed.
Questions settled- Can a statutory revisional power delegated to the 'Chairman and Members' of a commission be validly exercised by the Chairman sitting singly?
- Does an application filed by an aggrieved person after the expiration of the statutory limitation period permit the revisional authority to treat the proceeding as an exercise of suo motu power?
- Do public speeches by an administrative official expressing hatred or pre-judgment against specific parties disqualify that official from acting as a quasi-judicial adjudicator on grounds of bias?
- Does the acceptance of a preliminary objection during writ proceedings render subsequent final orders passed without lawful authority null and void?
- SARAJ AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 231 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- SAMIULLAH vs MUHAMMAD AHMED AND 6 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 49 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two Letters Patent Appeals arising from a suit for rendition of accounts filed by minor heirs against their former guardian, Samiullah, regarding assets and partnership profits of their deceased father. The core legal questions were whether the trial judge's interventions constituted bias vitiating the proceedings; whether the document (Exh. 5/3) acknowledging custody of assets was genuine and admissible; whether the minors were partners in the firm 'Sami & Co.'; and whether the final decree for accounts was correct. The Court held that while the trial judge's interventions were numerous, they did not constitute bias vitiating the proceedings, as the decision reached was inevitable based on the evidence. The Court affirmed that Section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899, bars challenging the admissibility of a document once it has been admitted into evidence. It further held that the minors were partners in the firm and the guardian was liable to account for their share. The Court dismissed the appeal against the preliminary decree but modified the final decree to allow for maintenance deductions.
Questions settled- Does a judge's active participation in examining witnesses and interventions in proceedings automatically constitute bias that vitiates a judgment?
- Can the admissibility of an unstamped document be challenged in an appellate court once it has been admitted into evidence by the trial court?
- Is a guardian liable to render accounts for assets and partnership profits of a deceased person held by them on behalf of minor heirs?
- Does the evidence recorded before a Commissioner for taking accounts become part of the suit record for all purposes, including challenging findings of the preliminary decree?
- SALIM AKHTAR vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 140 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-25Read full judgment →
- SALEHON MUHAMMAD AND Another SALEHON MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs SHERA AND Other KHAN MUHAMMAD AND Other1977 SCMR 297 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two civil appeals regarding the right of pre-emption over agricultural land in village Kuthiala Sher Khan. The core legal question was whether an owner of land situated within the village abadi (residential area) qualifies as an "owner of the estate" under Section 15(c), thirdly, of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, thereby possessing a superior right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that owners of land in the village abadi do not constitute "owners of the estate" within the meaning of the Act. The Court affirmed that the term "owner of the estate" is not synonymous with "owner in the estate" and is intended to refer exclusively to the proprietary body of the village who own revenue-paying land. The Court emphasized that interpreting the statute to include mere householders in the abadi would defeat the legislative purpose of the Pre-emption Act, which seeks to restrict pre-emptive rights to the proprietary body. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the long-standing judicial interpretation and the principle of stare decisis.
Questions settled- Does an owner of land in the village abadi qualify as an 'owner of the estate' under Section 15(c) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Is the term 'owner of the estate' synonymous with 'owner in the estate' for the purposes of pre-emption rights?
- Does the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 grant pre-emptive rights to non-proprietors residing in the village abadi?
- SALEHON AND MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 2 Others vs The STATETHE STATE1977 SCMR 492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment resolves two connected criminal appeals arising from a violent incident resulting in six deaths. The trial court convicted three of the accused (sons of appellant Salehon) under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced them to death, while acquitting Salehon and four others. On appeal, the High Court maintained the convictions of the three sons, upheld the acquittals of four persons, but on an equal division between the bench, a reference to a third Judge led to the conviction of Salehon under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined the sufficiency of corroboration for the ocular testimony regarding Salehon, noting that in appeals against acquittal and given the over-implication of co-accused, safe administration of justice required independent and reliable corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the evidence against Salehon lacked such necessary corroboration and thus set aside his conviction and sentence, while dismissing the appeals of his three sons whose convictions were firmly supported by corroborated eye-witness and forensic evidence.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony implicating an accused requires reliable independent corroboration when co-accused have been falsely implicated or acquitted?
- Can a conviction be sustained on uncorroborated eye-witness testimony in an appeal against an order of acquittal?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of conviction maintained by the High Court supported by medical evidence and recoveries?
- SALEEM AHMED vs Mst. KHADIJA BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 469 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-01Read full judgment →
- SALAHUDDIN KHAN vs FRONTIER SUGAR MILLS AND DISTILLLERY LTD. AND Other1977 SCMR 223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in an appeal involving rival groups of shareholders of a company. The core legal question concerns the resolution of internal corporate management disputes and the legitimacy of the removal of the Chief Executive and certain directors. The court records a settlement arrived at between the parties in the interest of the smooth functioning of the company. The holding of the court is that the compromise, which binds the parties to a prior agreement regarding the composition of the Board of Directors and the reinstatement and continuation of the appellant as Chief Executive until a specified date, is accepted. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the settlement. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court may dispose of corporate disputes in terms of a lawful compromise reached between shareholder factions to ensure the harmonious management of the company.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court can dispose of an appeal based on a compromise reached between rival shareholder groups?
- Are parties bound by a settlement agreement regarding the composition of the Board of Directors and the tenure of corporate officers?
- Can a company's Chief Executive continue in office pursuant to a settlement agreement approved by the court?
- SAL L AR AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 PLD Karachi 865 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-01Read full judgment →
- SAKIN MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1977 SCMR 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-12-21Read full judgment →
- SAJID ALI KHAN vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION1977PLC[C.S.T] 29 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-03-30Read full judgment →
- SAIFUDDIN SAIF vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 1174 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed to challenge the arrest and detention of poet Ahmad Faraz by Army Authorities. The key legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the bar to constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199(3) applied, and whether a civilian who is not otherwise subject to the Pakistan Army Act 1952 becomes subject to military law merely upon being suspected or investigated for an offence under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act prior to the formal framing or delivery of a charge-sheet. The High Court held that a civilian becomes 'accused of' an offence within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) only when a formal accusation or charge-sheet is preferred against him. Until that stage is reached, the person does not become subject to the Pakistan Army Act 1952. Consequently, the constitutional bar under Article 199(3) did not apply, and the detenu's arrest and detention by Army Authorities were held to be without lawful authority. The petition was allowed and the detenu was ordered to be released immediately.
Questions settled- Does Article 199(3) of the Constitution bar High Court jurisdiction over a civilian before he becomes subject to military law?
- At what stage does a civilian become 'accused of' an offence so as to be subject to the Pakistan Army Act 1952 under Section 2(1)(d)?
- Can Army Authorities lawfully arrest and detain a civilian prior to formal accusation or charge-sheet under the Pakistan Army Act 1952?
- SAID ANWAR vs THE STATE1977 PLD Peshawar 64 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The High Court heard an appeal by Said Anwar against his conviction and five-year sentence under Sections 3 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and Rule 43 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, relating to a bomb explosion in a post office letter box. The conviction rested primarily on the appellant's retracted confessional statement and his subsequent abscondence. The court examined the reliability and voluntariness of the retracted confession in light of material discrepancies between it and the eyewitness testimony, as well as the unexplained seven-day delay by the police in recording the confession while the appellant was held in custody. The court held that a retracted confession requires independent corroboration and cannot form the sole basis of conviction when its voluntariness and truthfulness are doubtful. Furthermore, abscondence alone is a weak corroborative circumstance consistent with both guilt and innocence. Finding reasonable doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Can a retracted confessional statement serve as the sole basis for a conviction without reliable independent corroboration?
- Does an unexplained delay in producing an accused before a Magistrate to record a confession undermine its voluntariness?
- Can the abscondence of an accused person independently prove guilt in the absence of trustworthy primary evidence?
- SAID alias SAIDU vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 558 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-29Read full judgment →
- SAGHIR HUSSAIN SHAH vs The STATE1977 P Cr. L J 78 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-17Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND Other vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 131 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1976-10-07Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR BHATTI vs Mst. ROZI JAN1977 PLD Lahore 836 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-02Read full judgment →
- SAEEDUDDIN AHMAD NAQVI AND Others vs ABDUL GHAFOOR AND Other1977 SCMR 306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the allotment of land to displaced persons under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, could properly interfere with proceedings before a Rehabilitation Commissioner regarding the condonation of delay in a revision petition. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the Rehabilitation Commissioner's proceedings, as the Commissioner possessed the statutory jurisdiction to entertain the revision and determine whether to condone the delay. The Court established the principle that where a tribunal or authority is vested with the jurisdiction to decide a matter, including the power to condone delay, the High Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction to preemptively quash those proceedings. However, because the appellants' case lacked merit on the facts—as the respondents had surrendered the excess land and the remaining allotment was within permissible limits—the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the final result of the case, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
Questions settled- Can the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, interfere with proceedings before a Rehabilitation Commissioner regarding the condonation of delay in a revision petition?
- Does a Rehabilitation Commissioner possess the jurisdiction to determine whether to condone the delay in filing a revision petition?
- SADIQ MASIH vs Kh. BASHIR AHMAD1977 PLC 513 · Labour Court · 1975-05-11Read full judgment →
- SADIQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 653 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-19Read full judgment →
- SADIQ HUSSAIN vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 350 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-26Read full judgment →
- SADIQ AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 529 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-09Read full judgment →
- SADARUDDIN M. JAFAR vs Mirza M. HASHAMBHOY1977 PLC 127 · Labour Court · 1976-10-21Read full judgment →
- SADAR, ANJUMAN-I-AHMEDIA, RABWAH vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI1977 PLD Lahore 1121 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- S. MUHAMMAD DIN & SONS LTD., LAHORE- Petitioner vs SALES TAX OFFICER, SPECIAL CIRCLE I, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 1225 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a manufacturer of electric fans, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenging the refusal of the sales tax authorities to grant it a licence under Section 8 of the Sales Tax Act 1951, as well as the refusal to refund sales tax paid on partly manufactured goods. The authorities had denied the licence after electric fans were exempted from sales tax, relying on Rule 4(1)(c) of the Sales Tax Rules 1951, which required applicants to be bona fide manufacturers of taxable goods. The High Court analyzed Sections 7 and 8 of the Sales Tax Act 1951, distinguishing between exemptions granted to specific classes of persons and exemptions granted to the goods themselves. It held that where the goods themselves are exempted under Section 7(1), they cease to be taxable goods, rendering the manufacturer ineligible for a licence. Furthermore, under Section 39(4), statutory rules have effect as if enacted under the Act. Lastly, the Court observed that parliamentary speeches cannot alter statutory enactments and dismissed the petition on merits and for laches.
Questions settled- Does an exemption granted to specific goods under Section 7(1) of the Sales Tax Act 1951 render such goods non-taxable, disentitling the manufacturer from obtaining a licence under Section 8?
- What is the legal effect of Section 39(4) of the Sales Tax Act 1951 on statutory rules framed under the Act when their vires are challenged?
- Can speeches made by ministers during legislative debates alter the legal effect of clear statutory provisions and notifications?
- Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be dismissed for laches when the underlying injury is claimed to be a continuing one?
- S. M. RIZVI vs FOURTH SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLC 640 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Project Engineer and Departmental Head, challenged the dismissal of his application under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by the Labour Courts. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, given his managerial duties and responsibilities, qualified as a "workman" under the relevant labour laws, thereby entitling him to seek redress for his termination. The Labour Courts had concurrently held that the petitioner, as a Manager responsible for policy framing, wage fixation, and administrative matters, fell outside the definition of a workman. The High Court upheld these findings, affirming that the petitioner's duties were managerial and supervisory rather than clerical. The Court held that merely working under the direction of others does not automatically confer "workman" status, as even high-level managers operate under company directors. The key principle laid down is that the determination of whether an employee is a "workman" is a question of fact dependent on the specific nature of duties performed, and the burden lies on the employee to establish that their functions are primarily clerical or manual in nature.
Questions settled- Does the fact that an employee works under the direction of others automatically qualify them as a workman?
- Is a person holding a managerial position and responsible for policy framing considered a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- What is the test for determining whether an employee is a workman or a member of the management?
- S. H. I. GUL vs SUI GAS TRANSMISSION Co. LTD., KARACHI1977 PLC 69 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1976-05-06Read full judgment →
- S. A. SAEED vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUFAQ AND OTHER1977 SCMR 305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal originated from a dispute regarding the Auqaf Department's attempt to retrospectively enhance the rent of a property occupied by the appellant, Mr. S. A. Saeed, from Rs. 12 to Rs. 230 per mensem. The appellant challenged the enhancement via a writ petition, and the High Court subsequently ruled that the Department was entitled to recover the enhanced rent, albeit with a modified effective date. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the parties reached a mutual compromise. Under the terms of the settlement, the appellant agreed to surrender vacant possession of the premises within six weeks. In exchange, the respondents agreed to waive their demand for the enhanced rent, allowing the appellant to pay the original rate of Rs. 12 per mensem until the date of surrender. The Court disposed of the appeal in terms of this compromise, stipulating that failure by the appellant to comply with the agreed terms would result in the dismissal of the appeal with costs.
Questions settled- Can a dispute regarding the retrospective enhancement of rent for Auqaf property be resolved through a compromise agreement between the tenant and the Auqaf Department?
- What are the consequences of a party failing to comply with the terms of a compromise agreement reached during the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court?
- S M. YAQUS AND ANOTHER; vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 418 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-26Read full judgment →
- S DISTRICT MANAGER, S.R. T. C,, KARACHI AND ANOTHER vs MOHAMMAD1977 PLC 405 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-15Read full judgment →
- RUSTOM KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATEOpponent1977 P Cr. L J 687 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-07Read full judgment →
- RUSTAM KHAN AND ANOTHER vs The STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1109 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-06Read full judgment →
- ROSHAN ALI AND 2 Other vs DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, LARKANA1977 PLC [C. S. T.] 8 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1975-11-02Read full judgment →
- ROGERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 138 · Sindh High Court · 1975-08-26Read full judgment →
- ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD. N.-W. F. P. vs JAMSHED BEGUM1977 PLC 514 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-11-23Read full judgment →
- RIAZ HUSSAIN SHAR AND 23 Other vs PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No. 2, LAHORE1977 PLC 1 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- RIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH AND 23 OTHERS vs PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No, 2, LAHORE1977 PLD Lahore 316 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-23Read full judgment →
- RIAZ alias SARFRAZ vs THB STATE1977 P Cr. L J 493 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-24Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AI1MAD vs SECRETARY (INFORMATION, CULTURE AND TOURISM1977 PLD Lahore 307 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from a dispute between proprietors of two touring cinemas regarding the legality of temporary operating licenses and extensions granted by the Provincial Government. The core legal questions involve the scope of the Provincial Government's statutory powers under the Cinematograph Act, 1918 and the West Pakistan Cinematograph Rules, 1962, particularly whether the Government possesses inherent administrative or directory powers to independently issue, direct, or extend temporary cinema licenses beyond the mechanisms specifically entrusted to the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner. The Lahore High Court held that the Provincial Government has no independent statutory or administrative power to grant, direct the issuance of, or extend touring cinema licenses outside the express framework provided by the Act and Rules. The Court ruled that the statutory power of licensing vests solely in the District Magistrate, with limited review and extension powers assigned to the Commissioner, and that the term 'control' in section 5(3) of the Act does not empower the Government to bypass these prescribed authorities or make substantive licensing decisions.
Questions settled- Does the Provincial Government have the independent statutory power under the Cinematograph Act, 1918 to grant or extend temporary cinema licenses directly?
- Can the expression 'control' in section 5(3) of the Cinematograph Act, 1918 be construed to empower the Provincial Government to select licensees or issue binding directives regarding license issuance?
- Whether administrative instructions issued by the Government can override or expand the licensing powers expressly conferred upon the District Magistrate and Commissioner under the West Pakistan Cinematograph Rules, 1962?