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.
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 327 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZAM MUHAMMAD FAZIL & Co., KARACHI vs MESSRS N. A.1977 PLD Karachi 21 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to enforce an arbitration agreement and a cross-application under Sections 31 and 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940 challenging the validity of said agreement. The core legal questions were whether the arbitration clause was void for uncertainty, whether the dispute was arbitrable, and whether the agreement was binding despite being signed by only one partner. The Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and binding. It established that an arbitration clause is not void for uncertainty merely because it is capable of different interpretations, provided it can be reconciled. Furthermore, it affirmed that a submission to arbitration by one partner can be ratified by the conduct of other partners. The Court also held that where a contract is for the sale of goods compensable in money, specific performance is barred under Section 21(a) of the Specific Relief Act 1877, and thus, interim injunctions to preserve the subject matter (a vessel for scrap) were refused.
Questions settled- Can an arbitration clause be declared void for uncertainty if it is capable of multiple interpretations?
- Does a partner have implied authority to submit a firm's business dispute to arbitration?
- Can an arbitration agreement be ratified by the conduct of partners who did not sign it?
- Is a contract for the sale of a vessel for scrap specifically enforceable under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- MUHAMMAD AYUB vs THB PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH THE VICE-1977 PLD Karachi 261 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 5 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MUMTAZ BEGUM AND 3 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 458 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD ALT1977 P Cr. L J 447 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM SALEEIVII, ADVOCATE vs THE PAKISTAN TELEVISION1977 PLD Lahore 852 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
A constitutional petition was filed under Article 199(1)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by an advocate and political party office-bearer against the Pakistan Television Corporation and Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. The petitioner alleged that the state-controlled media corporations exhibited bias during general election campaigns by favoring the ruling party over opposition parties, violating their legal duties. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding locus standi, exclusive jurisdiction of the Election Commission, and maintainability. The High Court held that the petitioner, as an office-bearer of a constituent party of a political alliance contesting elections, had locus standi as an aggrieved person. The court determined that statutory public utility corporations controlling broadcast media are subject to judicial direction under Article 199. It settled that 'conduct of elections' within the Election Commission's domain does not exclude High Court jurisdiction over public media impartiality. The court ruled that the respondents are legally bound by their statutory charters to maintain fairness, balance, and impartiality, directing them to provide equal coverage time as far as possible to major political contenders.
Questions settled- Whether an office-bearer of a political party participating in general elections qualifies as an aggrieved person with locus standi to file a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to issue directions to state-controlled broadcasting corporations to maintain impartiality during election campaigns?
- Does the statutory phrase 'conduct of elections' grant the Election Commission exclusive jurisdiction over the coverage of election campaigns by state news media?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 2 OTHERS vs Mst. NATHO BIBI1977 PLD Lahore 535 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of proceedings in a private complaint under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 pending before an Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether a Court of Session could directly entertain and take cognizance of a private complaint for an offence exclusively triable by it, without the matter being sent to it by a Magistrate under section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that a Court of Session is barred from taking direct cognizance of an offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been sent to it by a Magistrate pursuant to section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that private complaints for offences exclusively triable by a Court of Session must first be instituted before a competent Magistrate for initial scrutiny and transmission under section 190(3), and a Sessions Court cannot bypass this mandatory procedure by entertaining complaints directly.
Questions settled- Can a Court of Session directly entertain a private complaint for an offence exclusively triable by it without it being sent by a Magistrate?
- Does section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a Court of Session from taking cognizance of an offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless sent under section 190(3)?
- What is the statutory role of a Magistrate under section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding complaints exclusively triable by a Court of Session?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs The STATE1977 P Cr. L J 355 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1977 PLC 118 · Labour Court · 1976-05-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 1082 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs MESSRS SIMPLEX RUBBER MANUFACTURERS LTD;1977 P L C270 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-10-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs JAMALUDD1N AND 3 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 130 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs DISTRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., MULTAN AND ANOTHER1977 PLC 392 · Labour Court · 1975-05-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF DAR vs MUHAMMAD RIAZ ETC.1977 P Cr. L J 520 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 151 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHIQ vs MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND Another1977 SCMR 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal converted into an appeal, challenging the order of the High Court granting post-arrest bail to respondent No. 1, who was accused under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the High Court was justified in granting bail by holding that the applicability of common intention required further enquiry because the victims were allegedly not the intended targets. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to properly consider the provisions of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in light of the specific allegations—namely that the respondent was present, armed with a pistol, raised a lalkara, and fled with co-accused after fatal shots were fired. The Court ruled that a prima facie case existed and the High Court exercised its discretion on wrong grounds. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, allowed the appeal, and directed the respondent to surrender to his bail bond, laying down the principle that constructive liability under Section 34 must be duly weighed when evaluating bail in heinous offences.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail by holding that common intention required further enquiry because the victims were allegedly not the intended targets?
- Does the presence of an accused armed with a weapon who raised a lalkara constitute a prima facie case under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the purpose of bail?
- Can an order granting bail be set aside when the High Court exercises its discretion on wrong grounds regarding constructive liability?
- MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ vs MUHAMMAD TAHIR1977 PLD Karachi 853 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., JARANWALA1977 PLC 567 · Labour Court · 1976-08-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASGHAR AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 808 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KHAN vs J. & P. COATS PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI AND 21977 PLC 162 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KHAN vs J. & P. COATS PAKISTAN LTD. KARACHI AND 21977 PLD Karachi 83 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns the legality of withholding back benefits following an order of reinstatement for an illegally dismissed workman. The petitioner challenged the Labour Court's decision, which, while setting aside the dismissal due to procedural defects and ordering a fresh inquiry, made the payment of back benefits contingent upon the outcome of that inquiry. The core legal question was whether a Labour Court, upon ordering reinstatement under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, possesses the discretion to withhold consequential benefits. The Court held that Section 36-B(4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 is a special provision that mandates the granting of consequential benefits alongside reinstatement. The Court determined that the word 'and' in the statute is conjunctive, creating a binding duty on the Court to award benefits once reinstatement is ordered. Consequently, the Court ruled that back benefits cannot be withheld pending a fresh inquiry, as the illegal dismissal entitles the workman to wages for the period of deprivation. The principle established is that reinstatement and consequential benefits are inseparable legal consequences of setting aside an illegal dismissal.
Questions settled- Does the word 'and' in Section 36-B(4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 mandate that consequential benefits must accompany an order of reinstatement?
- Can a Labour Court lawfully withhold back benefits pending the outcome of a fresh inquiry after setting aside an illegal dismissal?
- Does a special provision in a statute control a general provision within the same statute regarding the powers of a Labour Court?
- Is an employee entitled to wages for the period of deprivation following an illegal dismissal that has been set aside by a court?
- MUHAMMAD ANWARUL HAQ vs PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No. 1, LAHORE AND ANOTHERs1977 PLD Lahore 907 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ANWARUL HAQ vs ----S. 2(I)-"Workman"---Person Employed1977 PLC 580 · Lahore High Court · 1975-08-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs Tog STATE1977 P Cr. L J 398 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 516 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN GHOURI vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD TAQI1977 PLD Karachi 391 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property located in Karachi. The defendant resisted the suit, alleging undue influence, misrepresentation, inadequacy of consideration, laches, limitation, and a subsequent oral modification shifting the obligation to obtain income-tax clearance certificates to the plaintiff. The core questions before the High Court of Sindh were whether the agreement was voluntarily executed, whether the defendant breached his contractual obligation to furnish necessary clearance documents, whether delay simpliciter and subsequent rise in property prices constituted laches barring equitable relief, whether the suit was barred by limitation, and whether oral evidence was admissible to prove a modification of the written agreement. The Court held that the agreement was voluntary, time was not the essence of the contract, and the defendant committed breach by failing to obtain the required clearance certificates. Delay short of the limitation period does not bar specific performance unless it causes prejudice or indicates abandonment. Furthermore, sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act 1872 barred oral evidence to vary the written terms. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff subject to deposit of the balance consideration.
Questions settled- Does a general rise in the value of immovable property during a period of delay disentitle a purchaser to a decree for specific performance?
- Can delay short of the prescribed period of limitation bar a suit for specific performance under the doctrine of laches in the absence of prejudice or abandonment?
- Is a plaintiff absolved from proving readiness and willingness to perform up to the date of suit where the vendor has repudiated or breached the contract?
- Can a party adduce oral evidence to establish a subsequent modification of obligations under a written contract for the sale of immovable property?
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 984 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1976-11-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 665 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs MUBARIK ALI AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 1422 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondents against a registered sale-deed. The trial court dismissed the suit because the plaintiffs affixed the deficient court-fees four days after the expiry of the time allowed by the court, holding the delay to be mala fide. The first appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the delay was a mere slip rather than an intentional default or negligence, and that the trial court had failed to provisionally fix the court-fee value under Section 9 of the Court Fees Act. The Lahore High Court upheld the first appellate court's judgment, ruling that under Section 149 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, courts possess discretionary power to extend time for making up court-fee deficiencies, and such discretion should not be interfered with in the absence of contumacy, negligence, or positive mala fides. The High Court affirmed that a delay of only a few days, absent deliberate disobedience, does not warrant the dismissal of a pre-emption suit.
Questions settled- Whether a court can dismiss a suit for a minor delay in making good a deficiency in court-fees in the absence of contumacy or mala fides?
- Does Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure give appellate courts the discretion to allow the making up of deficient court-fees at subsequent stages?
- Whether the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the rejection of a plaint apply after a suit has been fully tried and decided on its merits?
- MUHAMMAD AMJAD GUORI AND ANOTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 490 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIR vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN ETC.1977 PLD Lahore 1086 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIR dins MUSHKI AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 PLD Karachi 695 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellants by the trial court under Section 394 read with Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery involving a transport corporation bus carrying cash. The core legal question concerns the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the veracity of recoveries of looted money from the appellants, and the applicability of vicarious liability under Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness accounts and credible recovery evidence, notwithstanding flaws in the identification parade. However, the court ruled that Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, being a rider provision regulating minimum punishment, does not attract vicarious liability and applies only to those offenders who personally carry deadly weapons, cause grievous hurt, or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant who was not armed and did not cause grievous injury was altered from Section 394 read with Section 397 to Section 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while the convictions and minimum sentences of the remaining armed appellants were upheld.
Questions settled- Does Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attract the principle of vicarious liability for co-accused who are not personally armed or who do not cause grievous hurt?
- Can a conviction be sustained under Section 394 read with Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when identification parade evidence is ruled out due to delay?
- Whether the recovery of looted currency notes from an accused upon credible police testimony and mashirs is sufficient to corroborate a charge of robbery?
- MUHAMMAD ALL vs ATTA MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 727 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALAM vs Inn STATE1977 P Cr. L J 544 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Akram vs KAKA1977 PLD Lahore 1347 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs FINANCE SECRETARY, PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 81 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-08-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1977 PLC 467 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1976-01-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND 3 Others vs The STATE1977 SCMR 433 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentence of transportation for life for murder, recorded by the trial court and upheld by the Lahore High Court. The prosecution alleged that the appellants murdered the deceased due to a suspected illicit liaison. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether it was safe to rely on the solitary testimony of a related and partisan witness, especially when allegedly contradicted by medical evidence regarding the time of the occurrence and the contents of the deceased's stomach and bladder. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the ocular testimony of the primary witness was natural, corroborated by other independent witnesses whose evidence had been wrongly discarded on conjectures, and supported by incriminating recoveries of weapons stained with human blood. The Court laid down the principle that reliable and natural eyewitness testimony should not be discarded on mere speculation or minor discrepancies concerning medical evidence or stomach and bladder contents.
Questions settled- Can reliable eyewitness testimony be discarded solely on the basis of speculation regarding medical evidence and stomach or bladder contents?
- Whether the evidence of independent witnesses can be rejected on minor discrepancies concerning the reason for their presence at the spot?
- Does the presence of a related witness render their ocular account inherently untrustworthy without proof of enmity or motive to falsely implicate?
- MUHAMMAD AKHTAR RANA vs SPECIAL TRIBUNAL, PUNJAB1977 PLD Lahore 957 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKHTAR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 438 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 932 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION, KARACHI1977 PLC 470 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-06-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AJMAL KHAN vs TEE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LYALLPUR AND 4 or1977 PLD Lahore 20 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenges a detention order issued under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, against a detenu who was already facing criminal trial for murder. The core legal questions were whether the detention order was based on vague grounds and whether the state could use the same criminal conduct for which a person is already being prosecuted as a basis for preventive detention. The Court held that the detention order was illegal and set it aside. It reasoned that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for criminal prosecution for the same alleged offence. Furthermore, the Court found that the grounds of detention were vague, specifically because the identity of the individuals the detenu allegedly met to incite unrest was not provided, thereby depriving the detenu of the ability to make an effective representation. The Court affirmed the principle that if any ground of detention is vague or unlawful, the entire detention order is fatally defective and cannot be sustained.
Questions settled- Can the state use the same criminal conduct for which a person is already facing trial as a ground for preventive detention?
- Does the failure to provide specific details in the grounds of detention, such as the names of persons met, render a detention order vague and invalid?
- If one of the grounds for a detention order is found to be vague or unlawful, does it invalidate the entire detention order?
- Can a detention order be considered valid if it permits the detenu to attend court proceedings for a pending criminal case?
- MUHAMMAD AJMAL KHAN vs SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT JAIL, KOT LAKHPA I.--1977 PLD Lahore 44 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL ETC vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS1977 PLC [C.S.T.) 195 · Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND. 4 Oth vs MESSRS SHAHI BOTHERS LTD.1977 PLC 615 · Labour Court · 1976-04-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFSAR vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 346 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABBAS vs The STATE1977 SCMR 482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking reconsideration of an order dated 25th January 1974, which had dismissed a petition for special leave to appeal. The core legal question concerned whether the Special Judge-cum-Enquiry Officer, Anti-Corruption, could take cognizance of an offence under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, without proper prosecution sanction. The Court had previously held, relying on precedent, that the statutory bar to prosecution without sanction applied only to individuals who were public servants at the time the court took cognizance, rather than at the time of the commission of the offence. However, noting a conflict of judicial opinion in subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court on this exact question, the Court directed that the review petition be heard alongside other pending appeals raising the same issue to resolve the conflict.
Questions settled- Whether the statutory bar requiring sanction for the prosecution of a public servant applies only to persons who are public servants at the time the court takes cognizance of the offence.
- Can a court take cognizance of an offence under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 without proper sanction if the accused has ceased to be a public servant at the time of cognizance?
- How should the Supreme Court proceed when there is a conflict of opinion within its own decisions on a material question of law in a review petition?
- MUHAMIVIAD ANWAR AND ANOTHER vs GOVERMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND ANoThER1977 PLD Lahore 64 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-22Read full judgment →
- MUBAMMAD LUND vs THE STATE1977 PLD Karachi 966 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. ZAKIA KHATOON AND ANOTHER vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, KARACHI1977 PLD Karachi 6 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition assails an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Karachi, confirming a provisional requisition order and sealing a residential house under the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956. The petitioners claimed they were joint owners in actual physical occupation of the property after cancelling a prior tenancy agreement. The core legal questions involved whether the premises were lawfully requisitioned while in the petitioners' occupation and whether they were denied a right of hearing. The Sindh High Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding physical occupancy cannot be investigated in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, especially where objections filed before the authority failed to substantiate actual occupation at the relevant time and the objector was heard. The petition was accordingly dismissed without costs, affirming that factual controversies outside the record do not warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can disputed questions of fact regarding physical occupancy of a property be investigated in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Whether an owner in actual occupation of a residential house can be required to vacate it under the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956?
- Mst. WALLAN vs SULTAN AND 3 ANOTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 1073 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. UMAR BIBI AND 3 Others vs BASHIR AHMAD AND 3 Other1977 SCMR 154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from a dispute concerning 200 Kanals of land originally held by a deceased tenant under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912. The appellants, being the deceased Muslim Law heirs, challenged a majority arbitration award that was made a rule of the court upholding an oral gift made by the deceased in favour of his nephews. The core legal issues raised were whether the appointment of an umpire upon joint request of the parties was valid, whether the majority award was vitiated by the umpire's participation from the outset, whether the transaction violated Section 19 of the 1912 Act, and whether Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 invalidated the unregistered/oral gift.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the majority award signed by two arbitrators and the umpire was valid under Section 10(3) of the Arbitration Act 1940. Furthermore, because the donor paid the full malikana and acquired complete proprietary rights prior to his death, Section 19 of the 1912 Act no longer barred the transfer. Lastly, Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 expressly excludes gifts under Muslim Law from Section 123, thereby validating an oral gift where delivery and acceptance of possession are established.
Questions settled- Does Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 exempt oral gifts made by Muslims from the registration requirements of Section 123 of the same Act?
- Does the prohibition against transfer under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 apply to a gift made after the tenant acquires full proprietary rights by paying malikana?
- Can an arbitration award signed by a majority of arbitrators including the umpire prevail under Section 10(3) of the Arbitration Act 1940 where an arbitration agreement provides for more than three arbitrators?
- Is an umpire empowered to participate in arbitration proceedings from the beginning if the arbitration agreement expressly permits such participation?
- Mst. TAJConvict vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 95 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. SURRAIYA BEGUM vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 291 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. SOHAGI AND ANOTHER vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 272 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAM vs THE STATE1977 PLD Lahore 1149 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAMIMAKHTAR vs NAJMA BAQAI AND 3 Other1977 SCMR 409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-07-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over the estate of a deceased person, which was referred to arbitration. The trial court made the umpire's award a rule of the court, but the High Court reversed this, holding the arbitration agreement invalid for lack of proper stamping and lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether correspondence between the parties constituted a valid arbitration agreement and if it required stamp duty. The Court held that the correspondence clearly evidenced the parties' intent to arbitrate, satisfying the requirements for a written arbitration agreement. Crucially, the Court ruled that such correspondence did not constitute an instrument requiring stamp duty under the Stamp Act 1899, as stamp duty applies to the instrument recording the bargain, not the underlying transaction. Furthermore, the Court found that respondents who had accepted benefits under the award were estopped from challenging its validity. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the trial court's decision, affirming the enforceability of the arbitration award.
Questions settled- Does an arbitration agreement require a formal signed deed to be legally valid?
- Is correspondence between parties sufficient to constitute a written arbitration agreement?
- Does an arbitration agreement formed through correspondence require stamp duty under the Stamp Act 1899?
- Are parties who have accepted benefits under an arbitration award estopped from challenging its validity?
- Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR vs Mst. ASHRAF BEGUM Alias ASHRAF BAI1977 SCMR 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from a High Court judgment confirming the ejectment of the appellant from an evacuee property transferred to the respondent. The respondent sought ejectment on grounds of default in rent payment, sub-letting, and personal bona fide use. The appellant contested the ejectment, primarily arguing the lack of a statutory notice required under the relevant settlement law. The Rent Controller found the appellant liable for ejectment due to rent default, a finding upheld by the District Judge and the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the rule laid down in the majority decision of Evans' case regarding the necessity of statutory notice applied to the instant case, thereby precluding ejectment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate possession of the premises prior to 20 December 1958, a prerequisite for claiming the privileges of a statutory tenant under the governing legislation. Consequently, the Court affirmed the ejectment order, establishing that the protections of statutory tenancy are contingent upon proving possession before the specified cut-off date.
Questions settled- Is a tenant entitled to the protections of a statutory tenant under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 without proving possession prior to 20 December 1958?
- Does the failure to issue a statutory notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 automatically invalidate ejectment proceedings if the tenant does not qualify as a statutory tenant?
- Mst. SHAHZAD BIBI vs The STATE1977 SCMR 343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from an order passed by the Lahore High Court in proceedings under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the custody of minor children. The core legal question was whether the High Court was competent, within the scope of habeas corpus proceedings, to deprive the mother, who was the natural guardian, of the custody of her minor children and place them in a Darul Aman pending a Guardian Judge's decision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that where serious allegations exist against the natural guardian regarding the welfare and potential harmful disposal of the minors, the proper course is for the claimant to approach the Guardian Judge for custody adjudication. The Court established that summary habeas proceedings under section 491 are not the appropriate forum to resolve disputed questions of guardianship and minor welfare when serious allegations necessitate a thorough investigation by the competent Guardianship Court.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is competent to deprive a natural guardian of the custody of minor children?
- Is a habeas corpus petition under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 the appropriate forum to decide disputed questions of minor custody involving serious allegations against the guardian?
- Mst. SEWAN AKTAR (REPRESENTED BY HER HEIRS vs COLLECTOR (LAND1977 PLD Peshawar 45 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-05-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARDAR BEGUM AND 142 OTHERS vs THE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT1977 PLD Lahore 1200 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. SAKINA BIBI AND ANOTHER vs MAMLA AND 2 omns1977 PLD Lahore 202 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelling the temporary allotment of land devolved upon the petitioners (daughters and heirs of a deceased Jammu & Kashmir refugee) and allotting the same to contesting respondents against settlement claims. The primary legal issue was whether land temporarily allotted to a Jammu & Kashmir refugee forms part of the general compensation pool available for allotment to other displaced persons under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 and the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The Lahore High Court held that such lands had been sold to the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 and no longer formed part of the compensation pool. Furthermore, paragraph 4-A(ix), Part I of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme explicitly excluded lands temporarily allotted to Jammu & Kashmir refugees from allotment to other claimants. Consequently, the High Court held the impugned cancellation and re-allotment to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Whether land temporarily allotted to a Jammu & Kashmir refugee remains part of the evacuee compensation pool available for allotment to other claimants under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- Does paragraph 4-A(ix), Part I of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme bar the allotment of land temporarily held by Jammu & Kashmir refugees to other displaced persons?
- Are the legal heirs of a deceased Jammu & Kashmir refugee entitled to inherit and retain the temporary allotment of land held by their predecessor?
- Can a temporary allotment of land to a Jammu & Kashmir refugee be lawfully cancelled and re-allotted to a claimant from agreed areas without authority of law?
- Mst. SAFIA BEGUM AND OTHERS vs GHULAM RASUL AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 979 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. SAEEDA BEGUM AND 7 OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 226 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions challenging provisional assessment orders and consequential penal actions arising from amendments to Section 15-BB of the Income-tax Act, 1922, introduced by the Finance Ordinance, 1972. The petitioners contended that the President lacked the constitutional authority to impose taxes via Ordinance under Article 94 of the Interim Constitution and that the retrospective withdrawal of previously granted tax exemptions violated vested rights. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the President’s power to promulgate Ordinances for the "peace and good government of Pakistan" encompasses the power to levy taxes. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the legislature possesses plenary powers to enact laws with retrospective effect. Consequently, the retrospective withdrawal of tax exemptions through legislative action is valid, as the legislature may override vested rights provided it uses clear and unambiguous language. The judgment establishes that the authority to legislate includes the power to tax and the power to legislate retrospectively, even where such measures impact existing exemptions or previously accrued rights.
Questions settled- Does the President's power to promulgate Ordinances for the peace and good government of Pakistan include the power to levy taxes?
- Can the legislature retrospectively withdraw tax exemptions previously granted by notification?
- Does the authority to legislate include the power to enact laws with retrospective effect?
- Can a legislative enactment override vested rights if the language used is clear and unambiguous?
- Mst. RUKHSANA AHMAD vs TARIQ ATAULLAH1977 PLD Karachi 564 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. REHMAN BEGUM vs Mst. MAHMOODI BEGUM AND Other1977 SC M R314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute over the allotment of agricultural land measuring 91 kanals and 11 marlas in Tehsil Chunian, District Lahore. The appellant, Mst. Rehman Begum, claimed the land based on her mother's inheritance, while other parties, including sitting allottee Mst. Mehmoodi Begum, asserted competing claims. The Chief Settlement Commissioner eventually declared Mehmoodi Begum as the senior allottee with preferential rights. The appellant challenged the proceedings in a writ petition. Although the High Court formally impleaded Mehmoodi Begum as a co-respondent, the High Court's final judgment erroneously observed that Mehmoodi Begum was not a party and that her allotment remained unaffected, while remanding the rest of the case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan noted this factual error on the face of the record. With the respondents' counsel conceding that Mehmoodi Begum was indeed a party and that the remand order should operate against all claimants, the Supreme Court corrected the error, ensuring the remand order applied to all parties for a fresh determination of their respective claims.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court's judgment remanding a case can exclude a party from its operation based on a factually incorrect assumption that the party was not impleaded?
- Can an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the impleadment of a necessary party be corrected by the Supreme Court to ensure a comprehensive remand?
- Mst. REHANA AND 4 OTHERS vs NAWAB KHAN1977 P Cr. L J 380 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. RAZIA vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 328(1) · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUMTAZ AKHTAR vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 168 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. MUKHTAR AN BIBI vs The STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SADDAR POLICE1977 P Cr. L J 624 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. MALOOKAN vs SHER MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 718 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. KHATU AND 2 OTHERS vs BARRAGE MUKH TIAR KAR, TH ATTA1977 PLD Karachi 203 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, wherein 300 acres of agricultural land belonging to the appellants was acquired by the Public Works Department for the Kalri Lake Project in District Thatta. The core legal question was whether the compensation awarded to the appellants was adequate and whether the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961 retroactively modified the mode of determining market value under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Sindh High Court held that the appellants were entitled to compensation at a uniform rate for the entire 300 acres of arable land based on the prevailing batai rental system formula (Baker's Circular No. 6183), which worked out to Rs. 375 per acre, rather than differential rates arbitrarily imposed by the Commissioner. The Court laid down the principle that in assessing compensation for compulsorily acquired land, consideration must be given to all potential uses and advantages, and that an amendment altering the mode of determining compensation to the detriment of an owner's vested entitlement from the date of the section 4 notification is not presumed retroactive unless explicitly stated.
Questions settled- Whether an amendment to section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 introduced by the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance 1961 has retroactive application to acquisition proceedings initiated prior to its promulgation?
- Can land acquired as a single tract of arable land be subjected to differential rates of compensation for cultivated and uncultivated portions without legal justification?
- Whether sufficient cause is made out under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 for condoning delay in filing an appeal where the appellant was misled by a representative into awaiting the outcome of a connected appeal?
- Does the statutory formula under the batai rental system override arbitrary executive instructions in determining compensation for agricultural land?
- Mst. KASHMIRA JAN vs MAHTAB SHAH AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Peshawar 27 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-11-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. KARIM BIBI vs ABID ALI ETC.1977 PLD Rev. 54 · Board of Revenue · 1976-10-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. JAMILA SUBHAN FATEH vs Mst. ZAHOOR FATIMA1977 PLD Karachi 749 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. JAMIL AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 948 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. INAYAT 81BI AND 6 others vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 589 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. IFFAT SULTANA vs ALTAF UR RAHMAN1977 SCMR 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a custody dispute under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The respondent filed for custody in Karachi, but the Chief Justice of the West Pakistan High Court ordered the proceedings transferred to the District Court, Lahore. Despite this final transfer order, the Karachi Civil Judge proceeded to adjudicate the matter and granted custody to the respondent. The appellant challenged this in the Sind & Baluchistan High Court, where an initial stay was discharged. The core legal question was whether the Karachi courts retained jurisdiction after the final transfer order. The Supreme Court held that the transfer order of the West Pakistan High Court was final and binding, thereby divesting the Karachi courts of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order discharging the interim injunction and directed that no further custody orders be issued until the appellant's pending appeal is resolved. The principle established is that a final judicial order transferring a case between jurisdictions must be respected, and subsequent proceedings conducted in defiance of such an order are void and without jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does a final order transferring a case from one court to another divest the original court of jurisdiction?
- Can a court proceed with a case after a superior court has ordered its transfer to another jurisdiction?
- Is an order discharging an interim injunction sustainable when the underlying jurisdictional basis of the trial court is challenged?
- Mst. HUSAN BANO AND ANOTHERS vs BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 805 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. GHULAM ZAINAB AND 7 OTHERS vs Mst. TAHIRA SULTANA AND OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 830 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition was filed against the concurrent orders of the lower courts appointing a receiver for joint family property in an administration and partition suit. The respondents, heirs of a co-sharer, alleged that the petitioners had mismanaged the estate, pilfered income from a cinema house, and failed to pay them their share of profits. The High Court analyzed the scope of Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, observing that the power to appoint a receiver is a harsh remedy to be sparingly exercised. The Court held that a receiver cannot be appointed for property or business not forming the subject-matter of the suit. Furthermore, in partition suits between co-sharers, a receiver is not appointed as a matter of course unless there is proof of an imminent peril or active waste of the property. Mere apprehension of waste or non-payment of profits is insufficient to dispossess co-sharers who have been in long-standing possession. The High Court allowed the revision and set aside the appointment of the receiver.
Questions settled- Can a court appoint a receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 over property or business that is not the subject-matter of the suit?
- Whether a receiver can be appointed in a partition suit between co-sharers without specific allegations and proof of waste or imminent peril to the property?
- Does the mere non-payment of profits or exclusion from accounts by a co-sharer in possession justify the dispossession of that co-sharer through the appointment of an interim receiver?
- Mst. GHU LAM ZOHRAN AND ANOTHER vs THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF LAND1977 PLD Lahore 1038 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. GHAZALA SANA vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 192 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. GHAFOORAN vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR And Other1977 SCMR 472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal concerning the transfer of a disputed house in Mandi Bahauddin under settlement laws. The core legal question involved the interpretation of a Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner's order dividing the property and whether the High Court correctly construed the extent of transfer based on the text of the order rather than missing visual markings on a photograph. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench correctly interpreted the text of the order to ascertain the true intention of the transfer, as the underlying photograph bearing demarcation lines was unauthenticated and unsigned. The Court laid down the principle that in construing administrative or quasi-judicial property transfer orders, unambiguous textual intent prevails over missing or unauthenticated visual exhibits.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can rely on the text of a settlement order when the underlying documentary photograph is missing and unauthenticated?
- Does the text of a quasi-judicial transfer order prevail over unsigned graphical demarcations?
- How should conflicting property numbers and divisions in settlement proceedings be resolved by courts?
- Mst. FATIMA BAT vs Mst. FATIMA BEGUM1977 PLD Karachi 1007 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 arises out of an ejectment proceeding initiated by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant on the ground of default in rent payment. The Rent Controller dismissed the application for striking off the defence, holding that the delay was due to a bona fide misunderstanding, but the lower appellate court reversed this decision, finding the tenant in willful default and holding a rent deposit receipt to be ungenuine, thereby ordering ejectment. The core legal questions involved the competency of an appeal against an interlocutory or final order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance and whether late deposit or non-genuine receipts constitute default. The High Court held that an order deciding on the non-compliance of a tentative rent deposit order and striking off defence is a final order and thus appealable under the Ordinance, and upheld the appellate court's finding of default and non-genuine receipt. The key principle laid down is that orders regarding the violation of tentative rent deposit orders under section 13(6) are final, appealable orders, and default in complying with monthly deposit timelines entails summary ejectment.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal lies under section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against an order refusing or directing to strike off the defence of a tenant under section 13(6)?
- Is an order passed by the Rent Controller under section 13(6) regarding non-compliance with a tentative rent deposit order an interlocutory order or a final order?
- Does the deposit of monthly rent on the 15th day of the month instead of before the 15th day constitute a default under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Can a High Court in second appeal interfere with a finding of fact regarding the genuineness of a rent deposit receipt?
- Mst. EIDAN BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 414 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. BAKHT JAN ETC. vs SHER AFZAL ETC.1977 PLD Rev. 52 · Board of Revenue · 1977-07-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. AYESHABI vs ABDUL GHAFOOR AND OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 542 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. ARAB KHATOON vs Sh. MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 201 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. AMNA BIBI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND 4 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 110 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-25Read full judgment →
- Mst, GHULAM JANNA T AND ANOTHER vs HAQ NAWAZ AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 111 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-19Read full judgment →
- Mst AZIZ MAI vs S. H. 0., POLICE STATION JAL ALPUR PIRWALA, DISTRICT MULTAN1977 PLD Lahore 432 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment dismissing a constitutional petition filed by the appellant, a married woman, seeking to restrain the police from removing her from her husband's custody and handing her over to her father. The appellant, having married her husband of her own free will, faced a criminal case registered by her father under sections 363 and 366 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging abduction. The core legal question was whether the appellant, having attained puberty and entered into a valid marriage contract, could be forcibly removed from her husband's custody. The Court held that the appellant, being of age and having attained puberty, was competent to contract marriage. Relying on principles of Mahomedan Law, the Court affirmed that a Muslim of sound mind who has attained puberty may enter into a contract of marriage. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the appellant could not be treated as a chattel or forcibly removed from her husband's custody, while noting she remained available for any criminal proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a Muslim girl who has attained puberty enter into a valid contract of marriage?
- Is a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 maintainable against police action regarding the custody of a married woman?
- Does the attainment of puberty constitute the age of majority for the purpose of marriage under Mahomedan Law?
- Mrs. SAJDA ARSHID vs MESSRS INTERNATIONAL IMPORT & EXPORT Co., KARACHI1977 PLD Karachi 221 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-29Read full judgment →
- Mrs. S. M. GILL vs MESSRS TARBELA JOINT VENTURE1977 PLC 133 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1976-08-29Read full judgment →
- MR. ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 SCMR 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the constitutional validity of the Lahore High Court's composition, the appointment and authority of its Acting Chief Justice, administrative orders transferring a criminal challan case and a private complaint to a Full Bench, and allegations of bias. The petitioner contended that the Acting Chief Justice's appointment was invalid, that holding the office of Chief Election Commissioner created a constitutional bar, that the transfer of the case without notice violated section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the Acting Chief Justice was biased. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that questions regarding the validity of the High Court's constitution and the capacity of the judges should be raised before the Full Bench in the first instance or through appropriate quo warranto proceedings rather than direct appeal, that the High Court possesses powers under section 526(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to transfer cases on its own initiative without prior notice, and that objections regarding judicial bias must first be raised before the judge concerned. The Court established that appellate jurisdiction cannot be invoked prematurely before the High Court has addressed these preliminary challenges.
Questions settled- Whether questions regarding the constitutional validity of a High Court's bench can be raised directly in a petition for special leave to appeal under Article 185 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 without being agitated before the High Court in the first instance?
- Does the High Court have the power under section 526(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to transfer a criminal case on its own initiative without issuing prior notice to the accused person?
- Must allegations of bias against a judge be raised before the judge concerned in the first instance rather than directly before the Supreme Court?
- Moulana EHSANULLAH FAROOQI vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH THE SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT1977 P Cr. L J 433 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-18Read full judgment →
- MOOSA AND 4 OTHERS vs YAR KHAN AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 733 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-23Read full judgment →
- MOOSA & Co. vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS KARACHI AND AM/Irina1977 PLD Karachi 710 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from seven constitutional petitions filed against the Collector of Customs Karachi and others, challenging the imposition of regulatory duty or enhanced Customs Duty based on notifications purportedly issued on 21-8-1975. The core legal question was whether the impugned notifications could be given legal effect and enforced against the petitioners prior to their actual printing, publication, and distribution to the public. The Sindh High Court held, relying on Supreme Court precedent, that a notification is only published when steps are taken to communicate it to the public or parties concerned. Since the notifications were not printed until 17-9-1975 and not distributed until 16-10-1975—whereas the petitioners' bills of entry were submitted prior to the latter date—the customs authorities were not competent to levy the enhanced duty. The court accordingly allowed the petitions, discharged the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners, and ordered the refund of any excess duty paid.
Questions settled- When can a statutory notification be legally said to have been published?
- Are customs authorities competent to levy enhanced duty based on an unpublished notification?
- What is the effect of delayed publication and distribution of a notification on bills of entry submitted prior to distribution?
- MOHSIN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 159 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application was filed by an accused sent up for trial under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Saadat Ali. The prosecution alleged that the applicant held the deceased, hit him on the back with a danda (or iron rod), while a co-accused stabbed him. The applicant sought bail on the ground of a patent inconsistency between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, as the autopsy report did not show any injury on the back of the deceased, despite eye-witnesses asserting that the applicant hit the deceased on his back. The Sindh High Court held that a clear conflict between ocular and medical evidence creates a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court ruled that explaining such discrepancies is a matter for the trial court to determine upon considering the entire evidence. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant.
Questions settled- Whether a patent inconsistency between ocular evidence and medical evidence regarding the seat of injury justifies the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted to an accused when eye-witnesses assert a specific blow was struck on the victim's back but the autopsy report shows no corresponding injury?