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.
- RIAZ AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 105 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-03Read full judgment →
- REID. BRIGADIER HAMID HUSSAIN vs Chaudhry BARKAT ALI1977 PLD Lahore 2 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-22Read full judgment →
- REHMAT vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1069 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-29Read full judgment →
- REHMAT alias RHAMAN alias WARYAM alias BADSHAH vs The STATE1977 PLD Supreme Court 515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant was convicted by the trial court under sections 366, 376, and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the abduction, rape, and murder of a young woman, and sentenced to death, which was upheld by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether circumstantial evidence—specifically that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant before disappearing and her dead body being discovered days later miles away—was sufficient to sustain convictions for rape and murder. The Court held that the circumstance of the deceased being last seen in the company of the accused, by itself, is insufficient to sustain a charge of murder or rape without additional corroborative links, such as incriminating recoveries, a strong motive, or close proximity of time and space. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences for murder and rape while maintaining the conviction for abduction under Section 366.
Questions settled- Is the sole circumstance of the deceased being last seen in the company of the accused sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder and rape?
- Does Section 106 of the Evidence Act 1872 shift the burden of proof to the accused to prove his innocence in a criminal trial?
- What additional corroborative evidence is required to link an accused to a crime when the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence of being last seen together?
- REHMAT ALI vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 863 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-25Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI vs THE DISTRICT TRIBUNAL, SAHIWAL AND ANOTHER-s1977 PLD Lahore 341 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-23Read full judgment →
- REGISTRAION, TRADE UNIONS vs TUBE-WELL DRIVERS, WATER SUPPLY &1977 PLC 476 · Labour Court · 1976-03-03Read full judgment →
- RAZZ AHMED vs Mst. UZMA AKBARI AND ANoTHLR1977 P Cr. L J 730 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-27Read full judgment →
- RAWALPINDI ELECTRIC POW COMPANY LTD. vs PUNJAB EMPOYEES' SOCIAL1977 PLC 333 · Labour Court · 1975-05-30Read full judgment →
- SCHAZOO LABORATORIES LTD. vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE1977 PLD Lahore 79 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-01Read full judgment →
- RASHIDA vs GHULAM RAZA AND OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 363 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-05Read full judgment →
- RASHID alias SHEEDA vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 581 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-30Read full judgment →
- RASHID AHMAD vs SOOFI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 793 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-12Read full judgment →
- RANJHA vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 806 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-27Read full judgment →
- Rana ZAH1D ALI KHAN AND 5 oetteas vs EHSAN ELAHEE1977 PLD Lahore 538 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against an order passed by the District Judge setting aside the Rent Controller's order which had extended the time for depositing arrears and current rent, thereby refusing to strike off the tenants' defence. The core legal question is whether an order of the Rent Controller refusing to strike off the tenant's defence for non-deposit of rent is a final order and thus appealable under the relevant rent restriction law. The Lahore High Court held that an order refusing to strike off the defence is a final order because, if reversed by the appellate court, it terminates the proceedings by resulting in the tenant's ejectment, making it analogous to an order dismissing the landlord's ejectment application. The key principle laid down is that the finality of an order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance must be judged by whether the appellate court, by reversing the finding, can pass a final order terminating the ejectment proceedings, thereby granting a right of appeal under Section 15(1).
Questions settled- Whether an order of the Rent Controller refusing to strike off a tenant's defence is a final order or an interlocutory order?
- Does an order refusing to strike off the tenant's defence for non-deposit of rent give the landlord a right of appeal?
- Can the Rent Controller extend the time for the deposit of rent once fixed under the statute?
- Rana MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 177 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed in the Lahore High Court challenging the orders of the Land Reforms authorities who, upon review and revision, rejected the petitioner's claim to land under the Sale Scheme. The petitioner claimed entitlement to 162 kanals of land surrendered under the Land Reforms Regulation No. 59 of 1964, asserting he was in cultivating possession as a tenant during the relevant harvests. Although a predecessor Land Commissioner initially accepted his claim, a successor Land Commissioner, with the requisite sanction, reviewed and reversed that order, finding the possession entries to be interpolated. The petitioner contended that the power of review under Rule 11 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959, was limited to clerical or arithmetical errors and did not extend to reversing factual findings on merits. The High Court held that Rule 11(1) contains no such limitation and allows for a full review of factual findings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the power of review under Rule 11(1) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules 1959 permit a successor officer to reverse a predecessor's findings of fact on merits?
- Is the power of review under Rule 11(1) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules 1959 restricted or qualified by the provisions of sub-rule (3) regarding clerical or arithmetical mistakes?
- Can a finding of fact supported by relevant evidence and circumstances be disturbed by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction?
- Rana FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs Sir. FAZAL-UR-REHMAN & SONS MILLS LTD,1977 PLC 205 · Labour Court · -Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 646 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-08Read full judgment →
- RAJAL MAL vs THE STATE1977 PLD Karachi 13 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-26Read full judgment →
- Raja MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs ABDUL GHAFOOR1977 PLD Lahore 1072 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-19Read full judgment →
- Raja MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN,1977 PLC [G. S. T.1 139 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-11-04Read full judgment →
- Raja MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAWALPINDI1977 PLD Lahore 1006 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-28Read full judgment →
- Raja MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN ETC. vs ZAREENA AKRAM ETC.1977 PLD Lahore 662 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-11Read full judgment →
- Raja ALLAH DIN ETC. vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 517 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- RAHM BADSHAH KHATTAK vs NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., RAWALPINDI1977 PLC 644 · Labour Court · 1977-01-27Read full judgment →
- RAHIM JAN vs INSTITUTE OP CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 1450 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an order of expulsion issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan against the petitioner, a member, for alleged professional misconduct. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by bias and lack of jurisdiction, given the pre-existing animosity and public disputes between the petitioner and members of the Council. The Court held that the expulsion order was without lawful authority and void. It established that the proceedings were fundamentally flawed due to the presence of biased members on the Investigation Committee and the Council, who had previously leveled serious allegations against the petitioner. The Court affirmed that the principles of natural justice require that an adjudicator must not only be impartial but must manifestly be seen to be impartial. A real likelihood of bias, or a reasonable suspicion thereof, disqualifies a member from acting as a judge in a cause. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Council lacked the legal authority under the relevant bye-laws to compel the issuance of no objection certificates, rendering the basis for the misconduct charge legally unsustainable.
Questions settled- Does the presence of biased members on a domestic tribunal vitiate the entire proceedings?
- Can a domestic tribunal compel a member to issue a no objection certificate in the absence of specific bye-law authority?
- Is a domestic tribunal exercising quasi-judicial functions bound by the principles of natural justice?
- Does the existence of an alternative remedy, such as an application for restoration, bar a writ petition challenging an order passed without lawful authority?
- RAHAT SIDDIQUI vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY EDUCATION1977 SCMR 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. The appellant, a student, was accused of colluding with examiners to inflate his marks in a Social Studies paper. The core legal questions were whether disciplinary rules regarding examination malpractice cease to apply after the declaration of results, and whether a candidate has a statutory right to legal representation before a disciplinary committee. The Supreme Court held that disciplinary rules, specifically Rule 8(iv), remain applicable even after the publication of examination results, as the Result Gazette does not confer absolute sanctity or immunity from subsequent correction of fraud. Furthermore, the Court held that the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, does not grant a right to legal representation in such domestic inquiries, particularly when specific Board rules explicitly prohibit it. The Court affirmed that the appellant was provided sufficient opportunity to defend himself, satisfying the requirements of natural justice, and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the declaration of examination results in a Gazette grant immunity to a candidate against disciplinary action for malpractice?
- Does Section 22 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973 grant a candidate a right to be represented by a lawyer in disciplinary proceedings before an educational board?
- Can a disciplinary committee of an educational board prohibit legal representation during an inquiry?
- What is the scope of natural justice in domestic inquiries conducted by educational authorities?
- RAFIQ vs The STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1472 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-12Read full judgment →
- RAFIQ HUSSAIN vs ISLAMUDDIN AND 6 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 183 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-01Read full judgment →
- RAFIQ AHMAD, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, MULTAN vs GOVERNMENT1977 PLC 651 · Labour Court · 1975-04-10Read full judgment →
- RACHNA TEXTILE MILLS, GUJAR KHAN vs SABIR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1977 PLC 515 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1976-02-29Read full judgment →
- RABDINO vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 280 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-07Read full judgment →
- RAB NAWAZConvict vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1074 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-14Read full judgment →
- QURBAN HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 732 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-19Read full judgment →
- QUDRAT RAHIM vs GHUFRAN AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Peshawar 15 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-11-11Read full judgment →
- QUALITY STEEL WORKS LTD. vs WORKERS' UNION1977 PLC 91 · Labour Court · 1976-02-02Read full judgment →
- QUADRI BROTHERS FOUNDRY & WORKSHOP, KARACHI vs SIND EMPLOYEES'1977 PLD Karachi 112 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Section 64 of the Sind Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1972, challenged a decision of the Social Security Court affirming a demand for social security contributions on ex gratia payments, leave encashment, and payments to contractors. The core legal questions concerned whether the lack of a pre-demand show-cause notice violated natural justice and whether these specific payments constituted 'wages' under the Ordinance. The court held that while the initial lack of a show-cause notice was a procedural defect, it was cured by the full hearing provided during the appellate proceedings. Regarding the payments, the court ruled that ex gratia payments made pursuant to a government directive, rather than statutory obligation, and payments to contractors—where evidence failed to establish the workers met the twenty-four-hour weekly threshold—did not constitute 'wages' subject to contribution. Conversely, leave encashment was deemed 'wages' as it related to authorized leave. The court established that natural justice is satisfied if an adequate opportunity for hearing is provided at the appellate stage, and 'wages' require a legal obligation to pay.
Questions settled- Does the failure to provide a show-cause notice before an administrative demand violate natural justice if a full hearing is provided at the appellate stage?
- Do ex gratia payments made by an employer in compliance with a government directive constitute 'wages' subject to contribution under the Sind Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1972?
- Does leave encashment constitute 'wages' for the purpose of levying social security contributions?
- Are payments made to contractors subject to social security contributions if there is no evidence that the contractor's workers meet the statutory threshold of working twenty-four hours per week?
- QUADRI Brother FOUNDRY & WORKSHOP, KARACHI vs SIND EMPLOYEES'1977 PLC 236 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-20Read full judgment →
- Qazi MUHAMMAD QAHIR KHAN vs Haji HAFEEZULLAH1977 PLD Quetta 75 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-04-19Read full judgment →
- QAMARDIN (rukouGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS) vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, HYDERABAD AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 162 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-22Read full judgment →
- QAMAR HUSSAIN vs SULTAN SIKANDAR AND A NOTP1977 P Cr. L J 1096 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-11Read full judgment →
- QAMAR ELAHI vs GOVERNMENT OF SI ND AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 421 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a notification issued by the Commissioner of Karachi fixing prices for mutton and beef under the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958. The petitioner contended that the notification was invalid due to lack of consultation with trade representatives, improper investigation, and excessive delegation of authority. The court held that the Act does not require the association of trade representatives in price fixation, as the government possesses adequate machinery to determine relevant cost factors. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the power to issue orders under the Act, when delegated, inherently includes the authority to determine the necessity of such orders. Crucially, the court established that the statutory requirement of fixing 'fair prices' necessitates a reasonable profit margin for the seller. Consequently, when subsequent government studies demonstrated that production costs had escalated significantly, the fixed prices ceased to be 'fair.' The court ruled that the notification lost its validity from the date such cost escalations rendered the prices unreasonable, as they no longer fulfilled the legislative objective of ensuring fair prices.
Questions settled- Does the power to fix prices under the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, require the government to consult or associate trade representatives?
- Can the government delegate the power to determine the necessity of issuing a price control order under the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958?
- Does a price control notification issued under the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, remain valid if subsequent cost escalations render the fixed prices no longer 'fair'?
- QAIM DIN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 546 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-06Read full judgment →
- QADIR BAKSH vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DERA GHAZI KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 1044 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-25Read full judgment →
- QADIR AUMAD SIDDIQUI AND 6 OTHERS vs RAMZAN ALI AND 6 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 273 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the execution of a decree for ejectment and mesne profits, where judgment-debtors raised objections to the decree's executability under Section 47 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The decree-holder raised a preliminary objection, contending that such objections could not be entertained unless the judgment-debtors furnished security or deposited the decretal amount as required by Order XXI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the penal provisions of Order XXI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, apply to objections raised under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and Order XXI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, are not independent; Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, defines the scope of objections, while Order XXI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, governs the procedure for their disposal. Consequently, the Court ruled that judgment-debtors cannot object to the execution of a decree without complying with Order XXI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, by furnishing security or depositing the decretal amount. The preliminary objection was upheld, and the judgment-debtors were directed to furnish security.
Questions settled- Do the provisions of Order XXI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, apply to objections raised under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a judgment-debtor raise objections to the executability of a decree under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, without furnishing security or depositing the decretal amount as required by Order XXI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Are Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and Order XXI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to be read independently or in conjunction with each other?
- Is the requirement of furnishing security or depositing the decretal amount under Order XXI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, applicable only when a notice under Order XXI Rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, has been issued?
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE THROUGH IIS Secretary vs FAZAL1977 PLC 148 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-06Read full judgment →
- PUNHOON AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 221 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-11Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN vs MUSTAFA R. C. C. PIPE WORKS, KARACHI1977 PLD Karachi 397 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a civil suit regarding payment disputes under construction contracts for laying pipe lines. The core legal questions were whether a contract clause designating a Superintending Engineer to decide disputes constituted an arbitration agreement, whether his decision functioned as an arbitration award, and whether an unfiled award bars a civil suit on the original cause of action. The Court held that the clause in question did not constitute an arbitration agreement because it lacked the essential requirement of a quasi-judicial determination; the Superintending Engineer acted as an expert or valuer rather than an arbitrator. Furthermore, the Court held that an unfiled arbitration award does not preclude a party from instituting a civil suit on the original cause of action unless the award has been fully performed or acted upon by the parties. The key principle laid down is that for a decision to constitute an arbitration award, it must emanate from a quasi-judicial process, and an unfiled award does not extinguish the original cause of action. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a contract clause designating an engineer to decide disputes constitute an arbitration agreement if it lacks a requirement for quasi-judicial determination?
- Can an unfiled arbitration award be pleaded as a bar to a civil suit on the original cause of action?
- What is the legal distinction between an arbitrator and a valuer or expert in the context of construction contracts?
- PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY TO GUVERNMBNT OF SLID, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT vs JAN MUHAMMAD1977 PLC [C. S. T] 17 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1976-06-10Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs Sh. ZAFAR DIN AHMAD1977 PLD Lahore 55 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a second appeal arising from an order of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which dismissed the appellant's (Province of Punjab) first appeal as time-barred and refused to condone the delay in its institution against an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal question concerns whether the Government is entitled to special treatment or indulgence under the law of limitation compared to an ordinary litigant. The Lahore High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that the Government cannot claim to be treated differently from an ordinary litigant regarding limitation periods, as it possesses superior resources and facilities. The key principle laid down is that the Government is bound by the ordinary law of limitation and administrative delays or internal departmental reorganisation do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Questions settled- Whether the Government can claim a different treatment or special indulgence regarding the law of limitation compared to an ordinary litigant?
- Does internal administrative delay or the transfer of a dealing official constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing an appeal?
- Can a High Court interfere with a discretionary order of a lower appellate court refusing to condone delay when such discretion was not exercised arbitrarily or perversely?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs MUHAMMAD AFLAL KHAN1977 PLD Lahore 1270 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-10Read full judgment →
- PROGRESSIVE RUBB PRODUCTS LTD, KARACHI vs MAZDOOR UNION1977 PLC 665 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-09-03Read full judgment →
- POST MAST, HEAD POST OFFICE, MULTAN vs HAMID HASSAN1977 PLC 79 · Labour Court · 1975-07-21Read full judgment →
- PIRAN DITT A vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1066 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-11Read full judgment →
- PIR BUX vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 158 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-20Read full judgment →
- PERVEZ vs Tim STATE1977 P Cr. L J 463(2) · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-09Read full judgment →
- PERVEZ AKHTAR vs MUHAMMAD ARIF1977 PLD Lahore 394 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision challenges an appellate judgment regarding a pre-emption suit for urban property in Pindigheb. The core legal question is whether the custom of pre-emption, generally established in the town, applies to the specific locality (Mohallah Masjid Malkan) where the property is situated, particularly when the existence of that Mohallah at the time of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, is contested. The High Court held that the general existence of the custom in a town does not automatically extend to a specific sub-division. The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to establish the custom's existence in the specific locality. Furthermore, the court emphasized that a town is not presumed to have sub-divisions; their existence and status as recognized units for pre-emption law must be proven. Because the lower courts failed to determine if the Mohallah existed at the Act's commencement or if it constituted a recognized unit, the case was remanded for fresh findings on these issues.
Questions settled- Does the general existence of the custom of pre-emption in a town automatically extend to all its sub-divisions or Mohallahs?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the existence of the custom of pre-emption in a specific locality of a town?
- Can the custom of pre-emption be claimed in a Mohallah that did not exist at the time of the commencement of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
- What constitutes a 'sub-division' of a town for the purposes of the law of pre-emption?
- PAZ AL DIN vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 305 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-19Read full judgment →
- Pat Labour Court Punjab] Er ABDUL HALEEM vs GLAXO LABORATORIES1977 PLC 335 · Punjab Labour Court · 1975-05-27Read full judgment →
- PARVEZ KAYANI vs Tas STATE1977 PLD Lahore 603 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-24Read full judgment →
- PARTABRAI AND ANOTHER vs KABIR KHAN1977 PLD Karachi 759 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
- PARACHA TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs NANIKRAM SHAMANDAS1977 PLD Karachi 37 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, challenging an arbitration award granted in a dispute over a breach of contract for the sale of cotton. The core legal questions were whether an unsigned broker’s note containing an arbitration clause constitutes a valid arbitration agreement; whether such a contract requires stamping under the Stamp Act, 1899; and whether arbitrators may proceed ex parte when a party refuses service of notice. The Court held that an arbitration agreement need not be signed to be valid if the parties' intention to refer disputes is established. It further held that a mercantile contract for the sale of goods containing an arbitration clause is exempt from stamp duty as the arbitration clause is ancillary to the main contract. Finally, the Court ruled that arbitrators may proceed ex parte if a party refuses a properly served notice of hearing. The key principle laid down is that an arbitration agreement is valid without signatures if the underlying contract is proven, and arbitrators may proceed ex parte after serving a peremptory notice.
Questions settled- Is a signature required on a written document for it to constitute a valid arbitration agreement under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Does a contract for the sale of goods containing an arbitration clause require stamp duty under the Stamp Act, 1899?
- Are arbitrators justified in proceeding ex parte if a party refuses to accept a properly addressed notice of the arbitration hearing?
- Can arbitrators award interest on damages from the date of the award if the contract incorporates by-laws allowing such interest?
- PANJATAN METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ1977 PLC 220 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-10-26Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN WARRANTED WAREHOUSE LTD., KARACHI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 4 other1977 PLD Karachi 954 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN vs DILBER KHAN1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 69 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-08-11Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN TOBACCO Co. LTD., KARACHI vs PAK. CIGARETTE LABOUR UNION1977 PLD Karachi 586 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited, challenged an order of the III Sindh Labour Court, which held that the petitioner was liable to pay statutory profit bonus under Standing Order 10-C(1) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, in addition to the annual bonus agreed upon under a settlement dated 26th January 1972. The petitioner contended that the settlement bonus was a profit-linked bonus and therefore the workmen were not entitled to receive profit bonus twice. The High Court analyzed the nature of bonuses in industrial jurisprudence, noting that while the settlement bonus was historically linked to profits, the statutory bonus under Standing Order 10-C was a mandatory minimum. The Court interpreted clause (4) of Standing Order 10-C, holding that the phrase 'other than' means 'apart from', thereby preserving the validity of any bonus payable under an existing settlement, usage, or award. Consequently, the Court held that the employer remains bound to pay the settlement bonus in addition to the statutory bonus as long as the settlement remains in force, unless the employer legally terminates the settlement.
Questions settled- Whether a statutory profit bonus under Standing Order 10-C is payable in addition to a contractual bonus agreed upon under a settlement?
- How is the phrase 'other than' in clause (4) of Standing Order 10-C of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 to be interpreted?
- Can extrinsic evidence outside a settlement deed be considered to determine the true nature and character of a bonus agreed therein?
- What is the remedy for an employer if the financial burden of paying both statutory and settlement bonuses becomes unsustainable?
- PAKISTAN TOBACCO Co. LTD., KARACHI vs PAK. CIGARETTE LABOUR UNION1977 PLC 430 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-21Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN TOBACCO Co. LTD., KAKACHI vs PAK CIGARETTE LABOUR UNION AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 879 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-16Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN TOBACCO CO. LTD. vs PUNJAB INDUSTRIAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE AND 16 limas1977 PLD Lahore 354 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-23Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN STEEL PRODUCTS, KARACHI vs THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KARACHI AliD 2 OTHERS Respondents1977 PLD Karachi 1027 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-29Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN REFUGEES REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION AND ANOTHERs1977 PLD Lahore 1218 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN MOTOR OWNERS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs COMMISSIONER1977 PLD Lahore 345 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-13Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN METAL INDUSTRIES LTD, KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD AYUB1977 PLC 221 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-10-26Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INSURANCE CORPORATION, KARACHI vs P. T. INDONES ORIENTAL1977 PLD Karachi 562 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-13Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI1977 PLD Lahore 787 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAKISTAN ENGINEING Co. LTD., LAHORE vs INAYAT ALI1977 PLC 415 · Labour Court · 1975-05-28Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN CHROME MINES LTD. vs ENQUI RY OFFICER, WAR RISKS. INSURANCE1977 PLD Karachi 978 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-19Read full judgment →
- PAK NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION Co., KARACHI vs STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN1977 PLD Karachi 838 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940, wherein the plaintiff sought a court order directing the defendants to file an arbitration agreement and appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a construction contract. The core legal questions were whether the application was time-barred and whether the plaintiff had sufficiently specified the nature of the dispute to warrant the appointment of an arbitrator under the arbitration clause. The Court held that the application was time-barred, as the cause of action arose either upon the final payment on June 22, 1971, or upon the plaintiff's initial request for an arbitrator on March 29, 1971, both of which occurred more than three years prior to the filing of the application on September 3, 1974. Furthermore, the Court held that the application was meritless due to its vagueness, as the plaintiff failed to articulate the nature of the dispute or demonstrate that it fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for an application to appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act 1940 commence from the date of the final payment or the date of the initial request for arbitration?
- Is an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 maintainable if the applicant fails to specify the nature of the dispute or its relation to the arbitration clause?
- Can an application for the appointment of an arbitrator be dismissed on the grounds of vagueness?
- PAK INDUSTRIAL & MINING SYNDICATE LTD., QUETTA AND Other vs IQBAL1977 PLC 593 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-06-28Read full judgment →
- PAK INDUSTRIAL & MINING SY NDICATE LTD., QUEETA AND OTHERS vs IQBAL1977 PLD Quetta 45 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- P. I. A. CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS OF N. I.1977 PLC 686 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1976-12-16Read full judgment →
- OLYMPIA SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTO., KARACHI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, ISLAMABAD P.NO ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 307 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-15Read full judgment →
- OHULAM MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA KHAR vs ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 1437 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-20Read full judgment →
- OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, CENTRAL RECORD OFFICE AND Others CHIEF1977 SCMR 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the finality of orders passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner (or his delegate) regarding the genuineness of land claims under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether a confirmed allotment, once adjudicated as genuine by the Deputy Commissioner exercising delegated powers, could be reopened for fresh inquiry based on allegations of fraud, and whether the Officer on Special Duty (O.S.D.), Central Record Room, possessed the jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings. The Supreme Court held that once an order regarding the genuineness of a claim is passed under sections 10 and 11 of the 1958 Act, it attains finality under section 22 of the same Act, absent any revision under section 21. The Court affirmed that the O.S.D. performs ministerial functions and lacks the judicial authority to cancel confirmed allotments. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that bona fide transferees for value cannot be penalized for alleged fraud by their predecessors-in-title. The principle laid down is that statutory finality of administrative orders cannot be bypassed by reopening settled inquiries, even upon allegations of fraud, unless specific statutory review mechanisms are invoked.
Questions settled- Can an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner exercising delegated powers under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 be reopened after it has attained finality?
- Does the Officer on Special Duty (O.S.D.) of the Central Record Room have the jurisdiction to cancel a confirmed allotment of land?
- Can a bona fide transferee for value be penalized for fraud committed by their predecessor-in-title?
- Does the finality provision in section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 preclude the reopening of a claim inquiry based on allegations of fraud?
- Officer MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs DISTRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., LYALLPUR1977 PLC 556 · Labour Court · 1976-10-25Read full judgment →
- NUSRRAT KHAN AND 3 OTHERS vs AMIR KHAN AND 4 OTHERS1977 PLD Rev. 11 · Board of Revenue · 1977-02-16Read full judgment →
- NUSRAT vs NASIR AHMAD AND Another1977 SCMR 173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, which acquitted the respondent, Nasir Ahmad, of a murder charge under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondent and his brother murdered the deceased, Shah Mir, using a pahora. While the trial court convicted the respondent, the High Court acquitted him, finding the prosecution case was engineered by a rival faction leader, Nazar Hussain Shah. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, specifically the damaging admissions made by the deceased's mother regarding the influence of Nazar Hussain Shah, who had directed the filing of the FIR and offered to fund the litigation due to political rivalry. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained given the evidence of fabrication and partisan influence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution case was fatally undermined by these admissions, confirming the High Court's acquittal. The principle laid down is that where prosecution witnesses are shown to be acting under the influence of a third party with a motive to falsely implicate the accused, the entire prosecution case becomes unreliable.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution case is shown to be engineered by a third party with a motive to falsely implicate the accused?
- Does the involvement of a third party in directing the filing of an FIR and funding litigation cast sufficient doubt on the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
- NUSRAT ELAHI vs CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY1977 PLD Lahore 1077 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- NUS RAT vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 451 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-26Read full judgment →
- NUR. NAWAZ AND 3 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD PIO AND 31 Others1977 PLD Peshawar 70 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-05-18Read full judgment →
- NUR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 716 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-15Read full judgment →
- NUR AHMAD AND 4 OTHER vs MUHAMMAD YUSUF KHAN AND 2 OTHER1977 SC M R283 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the right of pre-emption over land sold by a confirmed allottee of evacuee property. The appellants, who purchased 65 kanals and 4 marlas of land in Gujranwala, contested a pre-emption suit filed by the respondents, arguing that the land was evacuee property and thus not subject to pre-emption. The Senior Civil Judge and the High Court both ruled against the appellants, holding the sale pre-emptible. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the sale of evacuee property, specifically by a confirmed allottee, is subject to the law of pre-emption. Relying on the precedent established in Fazal Elahi v. Muhammad Munawar (PLD 1973 SC 347), the Court held that such sales are indeed pre-emptible. Furthermore, the Court rejected the appellants' argument that the land was exempt under the Transfer of Evacuee Lands (Katchi Abadi) Act 1972, noting that the land had not been declared a Katchi Abadi by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that confirmed allottees of evacuee property are subject to pre-emption claims.
Questions settled- Is the sale of land by a confirmed allottee of evacuee property subject to the right of pre-emption?
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a pre-emption suit regarding evacuee property?
- Can land be exempted from pre-emption under the Transfer of Evacuee Lands (Katchi Abadi) Act 1972 if it has not been declared a Katchi Abadi by the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
- NOORUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND 9 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 275 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-24Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD. vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 500 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-15Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 643 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-28Read full judgment →
- NOOR MASIH SHAH vs ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KAMALIA1977 PLC 116 · Labour Court · 1976-04-14Read full judgment →
- NOOR ETC. vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 602 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-04Read full judgment →
- NOOR ALAM vs SARDAR KHAN1977 P Cr. L J 705 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-17Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMADPet itioner vs TUE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 936 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-06Read full judgment →
- NIZAMUDDIN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 648 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-24Read full judgment →