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.
- MOHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 543 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-10Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD HANIF AND 2 Other vs MESSRS ASIF SILK FACTORY1977 PLC 382(1) · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-07Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD AKBAR TARIQ vs THE STATEOpponent1977 P Cr. L J 540 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal miscellaneous application seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, pending before the Sessions Court at Karachi. The core legal question involves determining whether reasonable grounds exist to connect the accused with the murder based on circumstantial evidence, including motive, purchase of alleged weapons, and the 'last seen' theory. The court held that the circumstantial evidence presented, particularly regarding the time the accused was last seen with the deceased and the existence of multiple other potential enemies of the deceased, weakened the prosecution's case at the bail stage. Consequently, the High Court accepted the application and granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to furnishing security. The key principle laid down is that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must show that the accused was in the company of the deceased within a very short time of his death, and bail should be granted when reasonable grounds connecting the accused to the crime are not prima facie established.
Questions settled- Whether bail should be granted when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory is temporally remote from the time of death?
- Does the existence of alternative suspects and multiple motives weaken the prosecution's case for withholding bail?
- What is the duty of the court when examining data available in the case to find reasonable grounds connecting an accused to an offense punishable with death?
- MLSSRS BUTT ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES vs Karachi Shipyards & Engineering1977 PLC 224 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MITHOO vs The STATE1977 SCMR 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Mithoo against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had altered his conviction from murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part I, of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The matter originated from a land dispute resulting in a violent clash wherein the complainant party and the accused sustained injuries, and Allah Dad deceased suffered fatal head injuries. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant had exceeded his right of private defence in the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appellant indeed exceeded his right of private defence by inflicting a fatal head blow despite sustaining only a minor simple injury on his thumb, and that the concurrent findings of the High Court were not vitiated by any error of law. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Whether an accused who sustains only a minor injury can be held to have exceeded the right of private defence when inflicting a fatal blow to the head of the deceased?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 304, Part I, when the offender exceeds the power given by law in the exercise of the right of private defence?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the extent of the right of private defence in the absence of any misreading of evidence or error of law?
- MITHO AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 18 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-11Read full judgment →
- MITHO AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 124 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-10Read full judgment →
- Mit. MOMIN BAI AND 3 OTHERS vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 685 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil suit instituted under the Fatal Accidents Act by the legal heirs of the deceased for the recovery of compensation arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident. The core legal questions involve determining liability for rash and negligent driving causing death, establishing the earning capacity and life expectancy of the deceased, and ascertaining the extent of liability of the vehicle's owner, driver, and insurer under relevant statutory provisions. The court held that the driver's act of running a bus onto a footpath and causing instantaneous death attracted the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, rendering the driver and owner jointly liable, while limiting the insurer's liability statutorily. The key principles laid down include the application of res ipsa loquitur in pedestrian fatalities on footpaths, the assessment of dependency compensation based on life expectancy, and the statutory limits of insurer liability under the Motor Vehicles Act and West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply when a vehicle goes out of control and runs over a pedestrian on a footpath?
- Are the driver and owner of a bus jointly liable to pay compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act for a fatal accident caused by negligent driving?
- How is the normal expectancy of life and quantum of compensation determined for the dependents in a fatal accident claim?
- Is the defense regarding lack of notice to the insurer available to an insurance company under section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance?
- Miss R. SHAIKH vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN #,N3, 3 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 941 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-29Read full judgment →
- Miss IMRANA MALIK vs CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE, FOR ADMISSION IN MEDICAL COLLEGES, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 820 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court concerns the eligibility of the petitioner for admission to a medical college in the Punjab, having secured 594 marks in the F.Sc. examination alongside 20 marks under the National Guards Act, 1973 for completing National Cadet Corps training. The core legal questions are whether the statutory 20-mark concession can elevate a second-division candidate into consideration alongside first-division candidates by exceeding the 600-mark threshold, and whether internal and external assessment grades must be merged to determine merit. The court held that statutory concessions enacted by the legislature override subordinate prospectus rules, meaning the 20 marks must be counted toward eligibility for higher division consideration, but internal and external assessments remain distinct and unmerged. The key principles laid down are that subordinate rules such as a college prospectus cannot restrict or nullify statutory rights conferred by an act of the legislature, and that internal academic evaluations supplement rather than merge with external examination scores.
Questions settled- Whether the 20 marks awarded under the National Guards Act, 1973 can be counted for the purpose of making a candidate eligible for consideration along with candidates placed in a higher division?
- Do internal assessment grades merge with external F.Sc. examination marks to determine a candidate's overall division or merit for medical college admission?
- Can a subordinate rule or provision in an institutional prospectus restrict or nullify a concession granted by a primary legislative statute?
- Mirza GULZAR BEG vs THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAILWAY POLICE STATION, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 435 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-06Read full judgment →
- Mirza BASHIR UD DIN MAHMUD AHMAD (REPRESENTED BY 24 HEIRS) vs SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND 2 Other1977 SCMR 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants, legal heirs of the deceased claimant, challenged the dismissal of their writ petition by the West Pakistan High Court regarding the refusal to transfer a property known as 'Khyber Lodge' in Murree under the settlement laws. The core legal questions involved whether the deceased held valid possession of the property under Section 2(6) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 and the notification dated 3-8-1960, and whether the auction of the property pursuant to the Rehabilitation Minister's order under Section 10(2) of the Act was lawful. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that seasonal allotment of properties in Murree did not confer undisputed occupation, that illegal possession continuing in breach of allotment conditions could not attract the benefit of the government notification, and that the auction conducted under the Minister's order was validly passed pursuant to Section 10(2). The key principle laid down is that a party cannot claim statutory benefits of possession based on unlawful retention contrary to express terms of seasonal lease conditions, and administrative disposal of compensation pool properties through public auction under Section 10(2) is protected.
Questions settled- Does illegal possession continuing in breach of seasonal allotment conditions qualify as possession under Section 2(6) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Whether a claimant maintaining undisputed occupation is a mandatory prerequisite to obtain the benefit of the Central Government notification dated 3-8-1960 issued under the second proviso of Section 2(6)?
- Is an order passed by the Minister of Rehabilitation for the auction of properties in Murree a valid exercise of power under Section 10(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs MUHAMMAD HUSSA[N ETc.1977 P Cr. L J 526 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-17Read full judgment →
- Mirza ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1977 PLD Lahore 684 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-01Read full judgment →
- MIRAN BUXConvict vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 678 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-28Read full judgment →
- MIRAJ DIN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 780 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-28Read full judgment →
- MIR WAIS vs BABU KHAN AND 2 Other1977 SCMR 422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-07-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondents for murder, which had been upheld by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in discarding the prosecution’s case based on minor discrepancies in ocular testimony and the relationship of witnesses to the deceased. The Supreme Court, in its majority holding, set aside the acquittal and convicted the respondents. The Court reasoned that the trial court and High Court unreasonably rejected consistent ocular evidence by focusing on superficial inconsistencies and failing to appreciate the corroborative value of the medical evidence and the recovery of the crime weapon. The Court established that the testimony of related witnesses is not inherently unreliable if it remains consistent and is supported by other evidence. Furthermore, it laid down the principle that the recovery of a weapon remains relevant and admissible even if bloodstains have disintegrated, provided the accused had exclusive knowledge of the concealment, and that minor discrepancies in police statements do not necessarily invalidate the credibility of eyewitnesses.
Questions settled- Can an acquittal be reversed when the trial court's evaluation of evidence is found to be unreasonable or based on superficial grounds?
- Does the relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
- Is the recovery of a weapon admissible as corroborative evidence if the blood on it has disintegrated?
- Do minor inconsistencies in statements recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalidate the ocular testimony of witnesses?
- Mir KALAM KHAN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 759 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-05-09Read full judgment →
- MIR ABDULLAH vs MUHAMMAD ALI AND 2 OTHER1977 SCMR 280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil dispute over the ownership of land following a contested mutation entry. The plaintiff, Mir Abdullah, filed a suit for a declaration of ownership and possession, alleging that a mutation of sale regarding his land was fraudulently attested by a Revenue Officer without his consent or receipt of consideration. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently found that the plaintiff had not sold the land and that the mutation was the result of fraud. However, the High Court, in second appeal, reversed these findings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court had jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal. It affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, based on a proper evaluation of evidence, are not subject to interference in a second appeal under Section 100, provided there is no error of law or procedural defect.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a second appeal lie against concurrent findings of fact if the lower courts have properly evaluated the evidence on record?
- Is a High Court empowered to reverse concurrent findings of fact where no error of law or procedural defect is established?
- Mian QADIRUDDIN AND Another vs Mian GHULAM YAQOOB BANDEY AND Another1977 SCMR 475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which convicted the appellants under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, for allegedly dispossessing a court-appointed Receiver of a cinema. The core legal question was whether the evidence sufficiently established the charge of contempt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged dispossession, noting significant inconsistencies in the Receiver's testimony and the fact that the cinema's manager remained in possession long after the alleged incident. The Court emphasized that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, requiring that all doubts be excluded before a conviction is recorded. Citing established legal principles, the Court reiterated that the summary jurisdiction of the courts in contempt matters must be exercised with scrupulous care and only when the case is clear and beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the fine was ordered to be remitted.
Questions settled- What is the standard of proof required in contempt of court proceedings?
- Can a conviction for contempt of court be sustained based on inconsistent evidence regarding the alleged act of dispossession?
- Is the summary jurisdiction of courts in contempt matters required to be exercised with scrupulous care?
- Mian MUHAMMAD ASLAM GORAYA AND DIHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 394 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-20Read full judgment →
- Mian MANZOORUL HAQUE AND ANOTHER vs Mian BASHIR NASIR, ILAQA1977 P Cr. L J 734 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-31Read full judgment →
- Mian HAMEED AHMAD, PREMIER CLOTH MILLS LTD., LAHORE vs INCOME-TAX1977 PLD Lahore 1168 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mian GHULAM JAFIR vs Mian MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 965 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-19Read full judgment →
- Mian AFTAB IJAZ vs COMMISSIONER OP INCOME-TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE1977 PLD Lahore 1163 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-01Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SABINA LTD. vs MUHAMMAD RAHIM ETC1977 PLC 706 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-19Read full judgment →
- MESSRS S. I. T. A., KARACHI vs Syed ABRAR SAEED1977 PLC 551 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-28Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ROYAL CONFECTIONARY WORKS vs SALIM JAWAID1977 PLC 386 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-22Read full judgment →
- MESSRS QUALITY STEEL WORKS LTD., KARACHI vs RIAZAT ALI KHAN1977 PLC 505 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-12Read full judgment →
- MESSRS PREMI TOBACCO INDUSTRIES vs WORKERS' UNION (REGD.) AND ANOTHER1977 PLC 642 · Labour Court · 1977-01-28Read full judgment →
- MESSRS PARAMOUNT SILK MILLS, KARACHI vs ABDUL MAJEED1977 PLC 285 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-10-14Read full judgment →
- MESSRS PACKAGES LTD., LAHORE vs Syed ASGHAR ALI SHAH1977 PLC 327 · Labour Court · 1975-07-02Read full judgment →
- MESSRS NISHAT INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI vs GUL ZAMAN1977 PLC 672 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-20Read full judgment →
- MESSRS MARBLE INDUSTRIES LTD. vs Hafiz MOHAMMAD AMIN1977 PLC 94 · Labour Court · 1975-07-08Read full judgment →
- MESSRS KRISHAN LAL NAUTANDAS ATTA & OIL MILLS vs ALI SHER1977 PLC 388 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-26Read full judgment →
- MESSRS INDUS JUTE MILLS LTD. vs ABDUL HUSSAIN1977 PLC 378 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs HUMAYOON TEXTILES, KARACHI vs ABDUR RASHEED1977 PLC 223 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-09-30Read full judgment →
- MESSRS HAYAT INDUSTRIES LTD. vs THE FOURTH SIND, LABOUR COURT AND 21977 PLC 584 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-29Read full judgment →
- MESSRS GULCO INDUSTRIES vs MOHAMMAD ASHRAF1977 PLC 382(2) · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs F. & I.INDUSTRIES LTD. AND 2 OTHERS vs MESSRS FORBES FORBES1977 SCMR 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from an application filed by the appellants under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the stay of a recovery suit pending in the High Court at Karachi, in view of an earlier suit instituted by the appellants in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi. The core legal question was whether the matters in issue in the two counter-suits were directly and substantially the same so as to attract the provisions of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the causes of action and the matters directly and substantially in issue in the two suits were entirely different, as the subsequent suit related to the recovery of a loan and interest due upon default, whereas the earlier suit concerned a declaration, injunction, and accounts regarding a bank guarantee and stocks. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the principle that section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires a direct and substantial identity of matters in issue between the two suits.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply when the matters directly and substantially in issue in two suits are different?
- Does a suit for the recovery of a loan share the same matter in issue as a suit seeking a declaration and injunction regarding a bank guarantee and accounts?
- MESSRS F. & I. INDUSTRIES LTD. AND 2 Others vs MESSRS FORBES FORBES1977 SCMR 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from an order refusing to stay a subsequently instituted suit under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellant company had appointed the respondent as its sole selling agent and later secured a loan secured by pledged shares and a promised bank guarantee. Following disputes and termination of the agency, the respondent filed a recovery suit in the High Court at Karachi, while the appellants had earlier filed a suit in Rawalpindi seeking a declaration, injunction, and accounts. The appellants applied to stay the Karachi suit, which was refused by the Single Judge and upheld in Letters Patent Appeal on the ground that the matters in issue and causes of action in the two suits were entirely different. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 10 requires the matter in issue in the subsequent suit to be directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit, which condition was not met here as the causes of action were distinct.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply when the matters directly and substantially in issue in two suits are different?
- Does a suit for recovery of a loan and a previously instituted suit for declaration and rendition of accounts share the same matter in issue for the purposes of staying proceedings?
- MESSRS EASTERN AUTOMOBILES vs HAKIMUDDIN1977 PLC 697 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-11-30Read full judgment →
- MESSRS DOST MOHAMMAD COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES'1977 PLC 406 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-14Read full judgment →
- MESSRS DOST MOHAMMAD COTTON MILLS LTD vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1977 PLC 690 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-14Read full judgment →
- MESSRS COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD., MULTAN vs MUHAMMAD KHALIL1977 PLC 510 · Labour Court · 1975-05-28Read full judgment →
- MESSRS COFCOT TEXTILES LID., HYDABAD vs PEOPLE's UNION1977 PLC 371 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-11-24Read full judgment →
- MESSRS CHISTIA WEAVING WORKS vs HAZRAT GHAFFAR1977 PLC 370 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-11-28Read full judgment →
- MESSRS BECO INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI vs SIND LABOUR COURT No. 5 And 21977 PLC 544 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-15Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ANSAR Brother, MULTAN vs THE PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY1977 PLC 572 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-27Read full judgment →
- MESSES HAYAT INDUSTRIES LTD. vs THE FOURTH SIND LABOUR COURT AND 21977 PLD Karachi 778 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-29Read full judgment →
- Messes H. NIZAM DIN & SONS LTD., KARACHI vs M. V. "OROOMEE" AND 41977 PLD Karachi 722 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil suit filed by manufacturers and exporters of tents for the recovery of money for the loss of goods shipped for export to Bahrain, originally brought under the admiralty jurisdiction and later treated as a suit on the ordinary original side. Along with the plaint, an application was submitted for interlocutory relief by way of a temporary injunction to restrain the vessel from leaving the Port of Karachi and for an order requiring defendants to furnish security. The core legal question revolved around whether interim relief, including attachment before judgment, could be granted and whether the vessel sought to be attached was the property of the defendants. The court held that an attachment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be ordered unless the statutory conditions are satisfied, and crucially, only property owned by the defendants can be attached. Since it was admitted that none of the defendants owned the vessel, the court lacked jurisdiction to attach it, and the balance of convenience lay against detaining the ship. The application for interlocutory relief was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a vessel that is admittedly not the property of the defendants be attached before judgment?
- Does a shipper retain a right of action under a bill of lading after the property in the goods has been transferred to the consignee?
- What are the essential requirements for granting an attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether a temporary injunction to restrain a ship from sailing can be granted when the balance of convenience lies with the defendants and the plaintiff's claim is solely for monetary compensation?
- MESSERS WAQAR SILK FACTORY, KARACHI vs RAUF1977 PLC 282 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-10-27Read full judgment →
- Melton) INAYAT ETC. vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 463(1) · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-05Read full judgment →
- MEHTAB KHAN vs MIR KHAN AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 36 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-23Read full judgment →
- MEHTAB ALI vs PUNJAB POPULATION PLANNING BOARD AND ANOTHER1977 PLC 134 · Labour Court · 1976-07-13Read full judgment →
- Mehr MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND 11 Other vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 165 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1977-03-29Read full judgment →
- Me9srs HAJI SULEMAN USMAN vs MUHAMMAD SHAFT1977 PLC 265 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-10-11Read full judgment →
- ME4SR MUHAMMAD YOUSUF IQBAL AHMED vs IVTH SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 711 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order of the Sind Labour Court, which reversed a decision of the Junior Labour Court regarding the termination of an employee. The core dispute involved whether the respondent had voluntarily resigned or was illegally terminated. The Junior Labour Court had dismissed the respondent's application after comparing his admitted signatures with those on the alleged resignation letter. However, the Labour Court, on appeal, excluded this comparison from consideration, relying on foreign precedents, and ruled in favor of the respondent. The petitioner argued that the Labour Court misconstrued the scope of Section 73 of the Evidence Act. The High Court held that Section 73 empowers a court to compare signatures to establish genuineness. It determined that the Labour Court’s exclusion of this valid evidence constituted a jurisdictional error, as it ignored material evidence and led to an erroneous conclusion. Consequently, the High Court quashed the appellate order and remanded the case for a rehearing, affirming that courts may rely on their own comparison of signatures as a legitimate mode of proof.
Questions settled- Can a court rely on its own comparison of signatures on a disputed document with admitted signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872?
- Does the exclusion of valid evidence by a lower tribunal constitute a jurisdictional error that warrants interference by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is a court's own comparison of signatures a legally valid mode of establishing the genuineness of a document?
- MAZHAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 416 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-02Read full judgment →
- MAZHAR ALI alias MAJOO vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 825 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-26Read full judgment →
- MAZDOOR ITEHAD UNION vs REGISTRAR OP TRADE UNIONS, MULTAN REGION, MULTAN AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 588 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-11Read full judgment →
- MAZDOOR ITEHAD UNION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, MULTAN REGION, MULTAN AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLC 456 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-11Read full judgment →
- MAZ WALI AND Another vs The STATE1977 SCMR 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the cancellation of bail by the Peshawar High Court. The appellants were accused of offences under sections 148, 447, and 382 read with 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving an alleged dispute over sugarcane crop possession. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in cancelling the bail previously granted by the Additional Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by prematurely appraising the evidence to determine the culpability of the appellants, rather than focusing on whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused were guilty of an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or ten years' imprisonment. The Court found that the initial discretion exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge in granting bail was neither injudicious nor improper. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and confirmed the interim bail. The key principle established is that appellate courts should not prematurely evaluate evidence or determine guilt at the bail stage, but rather assess if reasonable grounds exist for the charge.
Questions settled- Is it appropriate for a High Court to evaluate the culpability of an accused during bail cancellation proceedings?
- Does the existence of previous civil litigation regarding land possession constitute a relevant factor for granting bail in a criminal case?
- Should an appellate court interfere with the discretion exercised by a lower court in granting bail if such discretion was not exercised injudiciously?
- Maulvi MUHAMMAD MURAD vs JANGI KHAN AND AMMER1977 PLD Quetta 79 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-05-18Read full judgment →
- MAULA BUX AND 8 Others vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHER1977 SCMR 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which the Supreme Court converted into an appeal. The appellants, accused of smuggling under the Imports and Exports Control Act 1950 and the Customs Act 1969, challenged the High Court's dismissal of their petition, arguing that the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. The core legal question was whether the proceedings against the appellants constituted an abuse of the court's process given the nature of the available evidence. Upon scrutiny, the Court held that while there was sufficient evidence to proceed against three appellants identified by officials during the incident, there was no admissible evidence against the remaining six appellants. The Court established the principle that a conviction cannot be based solely on the disclosure of co-accused persons, which, even if admissible under Section 30 of the Evidence Act 1872, is insufficient by itself to sustain a conviction without corroborating evidence. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings against the six appellants while allowing the trial to proceed against the others.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the prosecution evidence is insufficient to establish a prima facie case?
- Is the disclosure statement of a co-accused sufficient by itself to form the basis of a conviction?
- Does the identification of an accused by officials during a chase constitute evidence that requires determination by the trial court?
- Mat. AKHTARI BEGUM AND ANOTHER vs Mat. JAFRI BEGUM (REPRESENTED BY HER HMSO1977 PLD Karachi 850 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-04Read full judgment →
- Massifs INDUS JUTE MILLS LTD., THATTA vs FAIZ MUHAMMAD1977 PLC 258 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-11-21Read full judgment →
- MASHOOQ vs TiE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 672 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-18Read full judgment →
- MAROOF vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 489 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-28Read full judgment →
- MARKET COMMITTEE, PATTOKI vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, PATTOKI1977 P Cr. L J 265 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-17Read full judgment →
- MARIE ADELAIDE LEPROSY CENTREEMPLOYEES UNION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE1977 PLC 13 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-11Read full judgment →
- MARIE ADELAIDE LEPROSY CENTRE EMPLOYEES UNION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE1977 PLD Karachi 210 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-11Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL KHAN vs M. MUNSIF AND ANOTHER1977 PLC 152 · Sindh High Court · 1975-08-25Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 823 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-19Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD SHARIF vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 368 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-01Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 911 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the appropriate appellate forum for decisions rendered by a Family Court regarding the guardianship or custody of a minor. The core legal question was whether such appeals lie to the High Court or the District Court. The Court held that appeals in matters governed by the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, when decided by a Family Court, lie to the High Court. The ratio rests on the interpretation of Section 25 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, which mandates that a Family Court, when dealing with guardianship matters, is deemed a District Court and must follow the procedure prescribed in the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The Court reasoned that the forum of appeal is a matter of procedure, not a substantive right. Consequently, the appellate provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, specifically Section 47, prevail. The Court further noted that allowing appeals to a District Court from a Family Court, which is statutorily deemed a District Court, would create an untenable anomaly of an appeal lying to a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does an appeal against a decision of a Family Court in a guardianship matter lie to the High Court or the District Court?
- Is the forum of appeal considered a matter of procedure or a substantive right?
- Does Section 25 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 require Family Courts to follow the appellate procedure prescribed in the Guardians and Wards Act 1890?
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD., MULTAN1977 PLC 417 · Labour Court · 1975-06-10Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN AND Another vs ABDUL GHAFOOR AND 2 Other1977 SCMR 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from three separate ejectment applications filed by the appellants, landlords of three shops in Jhang, against their respective tenants under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The landlords sought eviction on the grounds of reconstruction, having obtained the necessary sanction from the Municipal Committee. While the Rent Controller initially ordered ejectment, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, and the High Court subsequently upheld the reversal in both second appeals and Letters Patent Appeals. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, the parties reached a compromise. The core legal question concerned the terms of eviction and the landlords' obligation to re-induct the tenants post-reconstruction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in terms of the compromise, mandating that the tenants vacate the premises within one month to facilitate reconstruction. The Court held that the landlords must complete reconstruction within four months and offer the newly constructed shops back to the respondents as tenants, with rent to be fixed by the Rent Controller, while prohibiting the landlords from occupying or leasing the premises to others in the interim.
Questions settled- Can a landlord be compelled to re-induct a tenant after reconstructing the premises under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- What are the obligations of a landlord regarding the timeline for reconstruction after obtaining an eviction order for that purpose?
- Is a landlord prohibited from leasing out newly reconstructed premises to third parties if the original tenant is entitled to re-induction?
- MANZOOR HASSAN vs PAKISAN THROUGH SECRETALY, MINISTRY OP FINANCE1977 PLD Karachi 1012 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-26Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 941 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-22Read full judgment →
- MANSOOR AHMED vs BASHIR HUSSAIN BABRI1977 PLD Lahore 532 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-03Read full judgment →
- MANSHA KHAN AND 2 Others vs The STATE1977 SCMR 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the refusal of post-arrest bail to the appellants under section 325 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned the proper exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail for a non-bailable offence carrying a sentence of up to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, specifically whether bail should be denied solely due to the number and nature of injuries received by the victim. The Supreme Court held that since the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause restricting bail, and absent any strong opposing reasons, the courts below erred in refusing bail merely based on the severity of the injuries. The Court laid down the principle that bail in such non-bailable offences should not be withheld purely as a punitive measure or based solely on the injury count without considering the statutory prohibition limits and the facts of the case, thereby allowing the appeal and granting post-arrest bail to the appellants upon furnishing suitable security bonds.
Questions settled- Whether bail should be refused in an offence under section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code merely due to the number of injuries suffered by the victim?
- Does an offence punishable with seven years' rigorous imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause where bail is ordinarily refused?
- MANSAB ALI ETC. vs The STATE1977 P Cr. L J 461 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-29Read full judgment →
- MANDVIWALA ESTATES LTD., KARACHI vs GOVERNMENT OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC1977 PLD Karachi 1057 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-23Read full judgment →
- MANAWAR DIN vs GUL ZAMAN AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Peshawar 59 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-06-23Read full judgment →
- MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNITED TEXTILE MILLS LTD., MULTAN vs RAHIM BAKHSH1977 PLC 511 · Labour Court · 1975-05-09Read full judgment →
- MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD vs ABDUL GHANI1977 PLC 115 · Labour Court · -Read full judgment →
- MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARK LUXURY HOTEL, LAHORE vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 24 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a constitutional petition filed by the Managing Director of Park Luxury Hotel, Lahore, challenging orders passed by tax authorities regarding property tax assessment following the partial demolition of the hotel building. The core legal question was whether a reduction in property tax resulting from the partial demolition or destruction of a building during a financial year should be given effect to for that entire charge year or postponed to the next charging period. The Lahore High Court held that property tax is levied on the annual value of the property and that chargeability is distinct from payability, which is merely divided into bi-annual instalments for convenience. The Court ruled that when a material change such as demolition occurs during a financial year, the resulting reduction in annual value must be reflected immediately for that current charge year rather than postponed. The key principle laid down is that amendments to a valuation list under section 9 of the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act 1958, necessitated by the destruction or demolition of property, operate to adjust the annual tax liability for the current charge year in which the incident occurs.
Questions settled- Whether an amendment to a valuation list due to the demolition or destruction of a building takes effect in the current financial year or is postponed to the next charging period?
- Is urban immovable property tax an annual tax or a distinct bi-annual tax for the purposes of assessment and remission?
- Does the power of the assessing authority to amend a valuation list under section 9 of the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act 1958 extend to reflecting material changes in the property during the current charge year?
- MALOOK vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 481 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-14Read full judgment →
- Malik WAZIR ALI vs Tern STATE AND 3 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 1010 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
- Malik NUR HAYAT NOON AND ANOTHERs vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF LAND1977 PLD Lahore 1042 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs MUHAMMAD SADAQ AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 794 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-16Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 445 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court upon a petition filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 upon a complaint by a Station House Officer. The core legal question concerns whether a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 upon the complaint of an S.H.O. rather than the public servant concerned or their superior, in view of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the provisions of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are mandatory, and a complaint by a person other than the public servant concerned or a superior officer bars the jurisdiction of the Court, vitiating the proceedings without being curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned complaint is dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether proceedings under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code can be initiated on a complaint filed by a Station House Officer instead of the public servant concerned?
- Is non-compliance with the provisions of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Does the absence of a proper complaint under section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bar the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance?
- MALIK MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN & Co vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JHELUM1977 PLD Lahore 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-22Read full judgment →
- Malik FATES KHAN vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, RAWALPINDI-1977 PLD Lahore 1100 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Malik BARKHURDAR KHAN vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 24 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 442 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the orders passed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (Martial Law Regulation 115), disposing of a pending suo motu revision originally instituted under the repealed West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 (Martial Law Regulation 64). The core legal question was whether an Additional Chief Land Commissioner possessed the legal competency and jurisdiction to hear and decide cases pending under the repealed 1959 Regulation prior to the formal notification of his office under paragraph 32(3) of Martial Law Regulation 115 in the official Gazette, or whether general transfer powers under rule 5(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972 sufficed. The Lahore High Court held that the special procedure under paragraph 32(3) of Martial Law Regulation 115 governs the transfer and disposal of old cases and requires specific notification in the official Gazette, which cannot be bypassed by general transfer provisions under the rules. The court concluded that the impugned orders passed without proper gazetted authorization were coram non judice, without lawful authority, and a nullity in law.
Questions settled- Whether an Additional Chief Land Commissioner is competent to hear cases under the repealed West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation 1959 without being specifically authorized and notified under paragraph 32(3) of Martial Law Regulation 115?
- Does the power of transfer under rule 5(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules 1972 override or dispense with the statutory requirement of a notification in the official Gazette under paragraph 32(3) of Martial Law Regulation 115?
- What is the legal status of an order passed by a functionary who lacks statutory jurisdiction or whose appointment has not been duly notified in the official Gazette?
- Can a confirmation of a void order cure the initial lack of jurisdiction or improve the legal status of a nullity?
- Makhdoom Syed NAZAR HUSSAIN vs CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB1977 PLD Lahore 57 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-30Read full judgment →
- MAKHAN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 PLD Lahore 722 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-11Read full judgment →
- MAJOR KARAM ELAHI vs THE STATE AND Another1977 SCMR 499 (2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court that cancelled the petitioner's bail in a murder case. The core legal questions were whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in cancelling bail and whether the petitioner, as an army officer, was immune from police custody under the Army Act 1952. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court held that the High Court’s exercise of discretion was neither illegal nor improper, as the prosecution had gathered sufficient circumstantial evidence which, if unrebutted, could form the basis of a conviction, thereby establishing reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was guilty. Regarding the statutory immunity, the Court clarified that the protection under the Army Act 1952 against police custody is conditional. It does not apply to offenses committed by a person subject to the Act against a person not subject to the Act, unless the offender was on active service at the time of the offense. The petitioner failed to demonstrate he was on active service.
Questions settled- Does the cancellation of bail by the High Court require a finding that the lower court's discretion was exercised illegally or improperly?
- Can an army officer claim immunity from police custody under the Army Act 1952 for a murder committed against a civilian while not on active service?
- Is the existence of circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish reasonable grounds for believing an accused is guilty for the purpose of bail cancellation?
- MAJOR ALI HUSSAIN SIR/kJ vs Mst. SHAHZADI BAKHr SHAMSHER AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 764 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-17Read full judgment →