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.
- GHULAM RASUL AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 326 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL (REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS) vs GHULAM RASUL1977 SCMR 147 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding the ejectment of a statutory tenant from a transferred evacuee shop. The respondent-landlord, upon acquiring the property, served a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, demanding rent based on an enhanced assessment by the local authority. When the tenant failed to comply, the landlord sought ejectment under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 on the ground of default. The tenant argued that Section 30 of the Act of 1958 provided absolute protection from ejectment for six years, irrespective of default. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that statutory protection from ejectment is conditional upon the tenant fulfilling the terms of the tenancy, including the regular and timely payment of rent. Consequently, the Court affirmed the ejectment order and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Does Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 provide a tenant with absolute protection from ejectment for six years regardless of default in payment of rent?
- Under what conditions does the statutory protection from ejectment under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 cease to apply to a tenant?
- Can a transferee of evacuee property charge rent based on the latest assessment carried out by a local authority?
- GHULAM RASOOL vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 353 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 102 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1976-03-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QASIM KHAN vs The STATE1977 SCMR 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of a colliery manager. The core legal question concerns whether the failure to name the appellant in the First Information Report (FIR) creates reasonable doubt regarding his identity as the assailant. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, affirming the lower courts' reliance on ocular testimony and the evidence of abscondence. The Court reasoned that the witnesses provided a plausible explanation for their initial silence—fear of the appellant, who was a local and perceived as a formidable character—and that the appellant's identity was disclosed to the police shortly after the FIR was lodged. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence of malice or motive for the witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant. The principle laid down is that the omission of an accused's name in an FIR does not automatically invalidate a conviction if the delay in disclosure is satisfactorily explained and the ocular evidence remains credible and consistent with other established facts, such as the accused's subsequent abscondence.
Questions settled- Does the omission of an accused's name in the First Information Report necessarily create reasonable doubt regarding their identity?
- Can ocular testimony be relied upon if the witnesses initially failed to name the accused to the person who lodged the First Information Report?
- Is evidence of abscondence relevant in establishing the identity of an accused in a murder trial?
- GHULAM QADIR vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1103 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 PLD Karachi 446 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR AND 2 OTHERS vs PAYAO KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Peshawar 30 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-01-20Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI vs COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD.1977 PLC 201 · Labour Court · 1975-04-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI ETC, vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 460 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs ASSISTANT VICE-PRESIDENT, MUSLIM COMMERCIAL1977 PLC 659 · Labour Court · 1977-02-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MURTAZA SHAH vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 478 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MURTAZA AND ANOTHER vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY AND 2 OTHERS- Respondents1977 PLD Peshawar 19 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-11-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 53 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD ETC. vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 459 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATERespendent1977 P Cr. L J 596 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-07Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 458 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 494 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MOHYUDDIN vs SUBA KHAN1977 PLD Lahore 1094 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant of evacuee property. The core legal question was whether a transferee of evacuee property is entitled to charge rent based on the 'latest assessment' by local authorities, and whether a tenant’s failure to pay such enhanced rent after notice constitutes default. The Court held that 'latest assessment' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, refers to periodic assessments, not merely the assessment in force at the time of transfer. A transferee acquires the right to charge enhanced rent only upon issuing a formal notice to the tenant. Consequently, the tenant’s failure to pay after receiving such notice renders them a defaulter. Furthermore, the Court established that a landlord has the absolute discretion to determine which of their properties to occupy for personal need, and the tenant cannot challenge this choice. The plea of res judicata was rejected as the landlord was entitled to enforce rights arising from subsequent valid assessments.
Questions settled- Does 'latest assessment' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, refer only to the assessment in force at the time of property transfer?
- Is a tenant of evacuee property liable to pay enhanced rent based on a new assessment without receiving prior notice from the landlord?
- Can a landlord who owns multiple properties be compelled by a tenant or the Controller to occupy a specific property for their personal need?
- Does the principle of res judicata bar a landlord from seeking rent at an enhanced rate if a new assessment has been made subsequent to a previous court order?
- GHULAM MOHYUD DIN (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) vs Minn AMIRUDDIN1977 PLD Lahore 381 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. During the pendency of the proceedings, certain respondents died, and the appellants failed to implead their legal representatives within the statutory limitation period. The appellants subsequently filed applications to bring the legal representatives on record, invoking the court's discretion under Order XLI, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The core legal question was whether an appellate court possesses the power to implead legal representatives of a deceased respondent after the period of limitation has expired, particularly when the appellants had prior knowledge of the deaths. The court held that the appeal had abated in toto. It ruled that the court cannot exercise its discretionary power under Order XLI, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to implead parties against whom the limitation period has run out, especially where the appellants are guilty of extreme neglect. The principle established is that the appellate court cannot override the provisions of Order XXII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding abatement.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court implead legal representatives of a deceased respondent under Order XLI, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after the period of limitation has expired?
- Does the failure to implead legal representatives of a deceased respondent within the limitation period result in the abatement of the appeal?
- Can the appellate court exercise its inherent powers under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to add a party against whom the limitation period has already run out?
- Is an appeal competent if a necessary party has not been impleaded due to the death of the original respondent?
- GHULAM JILANI vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 366 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN AND Another vs SHAUKAT ALI AND Other1977 SCMR 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These three appeals arose from a judgment of the High Court dismissing revision applications against orders passed in execution proceedings regarding pre-emption decrees over agricultural land. The core legal questions involved the limitation period for filing petitions for leave to appeal and the abatement of appeals due to failure to timely implead legal heirs. The Supreme Court held that appeals filed with an unexplained delay of 37 days, without even an application for condonation of delay, are time-barred and must be dismissed. Furthermore, an appeal abates when an application to bring legal heirs on record is filed nearly two years after the appellant's death, and ignorance of the law—especially when represented by counsel—does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation. The key principle laid down is that unexplained delay in filing appeals and gross delay in substituting legal heirs result in the dismissal of appeals as time-barred and abated.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal filed with a delay without an application for condonation of delay can be entertained?
- Does ignorance of the law by legal heirs, when represented by counsel, constitute sufficient cause to condone a gross delay in filing an application to be impleaded?
- What is the consequence of failing to implead legal heirs of a deceased appellant within the statutory period?
- GHULAM HASAN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 479 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM GILANI vs THE GENERAL MANAGER, HOTEL INTER CONTINENTAL, LAHORE1977 PLC 662 · Labour Court · 1975-04-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM DASTGIR vs SPECIAL TRIBUNAL, SIND AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 440 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-28Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ALI SHAH vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 185 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AKBAR SHAIKH vs CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1977 PLC [C.S.T] 92 · Federal Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AHMED vs D. I: G. POLICE, AZAD JAMM.U & KASHMIR AND ANOTHER1977 PLC [C.S.T.1 65 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS vs MUZAFFAR KHAN1977 PLD Lahore 1247 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-26Read full judgment →
- GHAZI DECORATION SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION vs LABOUR COURT1977 PLC 429 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-07-24Read full judgment →
- GHARIBWAL CEMENT LTD. LAHORE vs MESSRS UNIVERSAL TRADERS, GAKHAR1977 PLD Lahore 481 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two civil revision petitions arising from a suit for specific performance of a cement agency agreement. The core legal questions were whether a corporation could be sued in a court where a part of the cause of action arose, notwithstanding the absence of a subordinate office, and whether a mandatory injunction was appropriate under the circumstances. The Court held that Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is an independent provision regarding territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, a corporation may be sued at any place where the cause of action arises, in whole or in part, regardless of whether it maintains a subordinate office at that location. Explanation II to Section 20 pertains only to the definition of carrying on business under clauses (a) and (b) and does not restrict the operation of clause (c). Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a mandatory injunction cannot be granted under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, particularly when the alleged injury is compensable through monetary damages. Both petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does Explanation II to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 restrict the jurisdiction of a court under clause (c) of the same section regarding corporations?
- Can a corporation be sued in a court where a part of the cause of action arises if it does not maintain a subordinate office at that location?
- Is a mandatory injunction maintainable under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the loss is calculable in monetary terms?
- GHARIBUL HASSAN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 315 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-26Read full judgment →
- GENERAL MANAGER. HEAVY MECHANICAL COMPLEX, TAXILA vs MR. BASHIR1977 PLC 516 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-11Read full judgment →
- GENERAL MANAGER, LYALLPUR, COTTON MILLS, LYALLPUR vs SARDAR1977 PLD Lahore 188 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-10Read full judgment →
- GENERAL MANAGER, HEAVY MECHANICAL COMPLEX, TAXILA vs MR. BASHIR1977 PLD Lahore 982 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- GASPER PERIERA vs MRS. JENNIFER PERIERA AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 307 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-24Read full judgment →
- G. T. S. LABOUR UNION (C. B. A.) GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, LYALLPUR1977 PLC 113 · Labour Court · 1975-01-30Read full judgment →
- FIDA MUHAMMAD vs MINISTRY OF DEFENCE1977 PLC [C. S. T.] 144 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-02-01Read full judgment →
- FIDA HUSSAIN vs Mst. NASEEM AKHTAR AND OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 328 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-22Read full judgment →
- FIDA HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 821 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-29Read full judgment →
- FEROZE DIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), LAHORE AND 2 OMERS1977 PLD Lahore 1135 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-29Read full judgment →
- FAZIL AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 471 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-21Read full judgment →
- FAZALE REHMAN (REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS) vs NIAZ AHMAD1977 PLD Lahore 1036 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-30Read full judgment →
- FAZAL QURESHI vs MESSRS PAKISTAN PRESS INTERNATIONAL, KARACHI1977 PLC 277 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-11-21Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MASIH vs ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPAL COMPITTEE, KAMALIA1977 PLC 101 · Labour Court · 1976-05-18Read full judgment →
- FAZAL vs ABDUL HUSSAIN AND 6 another1977 PLD Karachi 772 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-17Read full judgment →
- FAZAL ILLAHI MUNIR vs DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, GUJRAT1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 91 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1974-11-05Read full judgment →
- FAZAL HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 468 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-01Read full judgment →
- FAZAL ELAHI EJAZ AND 22 OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 131977 PLD Lahore 549 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against the dismissal of writ petitions challenging the validity of the Punjab Nationalised Schools (Men and Women Sections) Teaching Posts Rules, 1974, and the Nationalized Colleges (Men and Women Sections) Teaching Posts Rules, 1974. The petitioners, former headmasters and college teachers, argued that these rules, which effectively reduced their rank and status following the nationalization of their institutions under Martial Law Regulation No. 118, violated the protection of service terms guaranteed by paragraph 7(2) of the Regulation. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain these challenges or if the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court held that the impugned rules and orders regarding reduction in rank constituted matters of service terms and conditions, thereby falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief. The Court affirmed that while the government's actions appeared to contradict the original intent of the Regulation, the constitutional bar under Article 212 necessitated the dismissal of the appeals.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge against service rules when the matter falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Can an executive order of a general nature be treated as a statutory rule for the purpose of determining its validity?
- Does the protection of terms and conditions of service under paragraph 7(2) of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 guarantee the retention of specific posts held by teachers prior to nationalization?
- Can subordinate legislation be given retrospective effect to deprive a person of a vested right?
- FAZAL DAD vs ATTOCK ELECTRIC SUPPLY Co. LTD.1977 PLC 364 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-07-09Read full judgment →
- FAZAL DAD AND 2 OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) WEST1977 PLD Lahore 264 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition arises out of a dispute regarding the cancellation of the auction and transfer of a 14-acre land lot (Lot No. 43) in District Multan, purchased by the petitioners in June 1962. After the petitioners failed to pay the final instalment on time, a show-cause notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) Khanewal, signing for the Collector, which led the Collector to cancel the transfer of the land. The petitioners' appeals and subsequent revision and review before the revenue authorities were dismissed. The core legal questions involved whether an S.D.O. is competent to issue a notice under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act V of 1912, and whether a Collector exercises lawful and independent application of mind by merely initialing an office-noting. The Lahore High Court held that the S.D.O. was not a Collector and lacked the authority to issue the notice, rendering the notice and subsequent proceedings void ab initio. The Court further held that the Collector failed to apply an independent mind by merely signing the office-noting without a conscientious decision. Consequently, the impugned orders were declared without lawful authority and the case was remanded to the Collector for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Whether an S.D.O. is authorised to exercise the powers of a Collector and issue a notice under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act V of 1912?
- Does a Collector's mere initialing or signing of an office-noting amount to a conscientious and independent application of mind?
- What is the legal effect of a basic notice issued by an incompetent authority upon the subsequent proceedings and orders based thereon?
- FAZAL CLOTH MILLS LTD. vs RAHIM SHAH AND OTHERS1977 PLC 200 · Labour Court · 1975-04-16Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs MAHMOOD1977 P Cr. L J 393 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-11Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 706 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-25Read full judgment →
- FATA AND 4 OTHERS vs Tan STATE1977 P Cr. L J 591 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-08Read full judgment →
- FARZAND ALI vs Ch. MUHAMMAD ARIF Alias SAIFUL MALOOK1977 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's suit for a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding a property in Satellite Town, Rawalpindi. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the property from the respondent through a special attorney, Muhammad Ashraf. The respondent denied the authority of the alleged attorney and alleged that the transfer was procured through fraud and forgery. The trial court, the District Judge, and the High Court concurrently found against the petitioner, noting that the petitioner failed to prove the execution of the power of attorney or the validity of the sale agreement. Evidence indicated that the alleged scribe of the power of attorney did not exist on the date of execution, and the marginal witnesses were not produced. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner failed to establish the agency or the authenticity of the sale documents, there was no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts when the petitioner fails to prove the execution of a power of attorney?
- Is a sale agreement valid if the alleged attorney lacks proven authority to sell the property?
- FARYAD ALI AND 5 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 912 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-16Read full judgment →
- FAROOQ AHMAD vs THe STATE1977 P Cr. L J 619 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-22Read full judgment →
- FARMAN vs MESSRS HOTEL EXCELSIOR, KARACHI1977 PLC 677 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-11-28Read full judgment →
- FARMAN vs HOTEL EXCELSIOR1977 PLC 216 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-11-28Read full judgment →
- FAQIR SHAH vs 'THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 172 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-31Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 895 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-13Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 870 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-04Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD AND Another vs The STATE1977 SCMR 26 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had cancelled the appellants' bail due to their non-appearance. The core legal question was whether the High Court's order cancelling bail for non-appearance should be sustained when the appellants claimed they were never served with notice due to incomplete addresses provided by the State, and whether they should be afforded an opportunity to be heard on the merits. The Supreme Court, agreeing with the State's contention that the appellants ought to have surrendered before the High Court to seek relief, held that the bail cancellation order was based on procedural default rather than a consideration of the merits of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the appellants to appear before the High Court on a specified date, thereby allowing the High Court to reconsider the bail application on its merits. The key principle established is that an accused should be given an opportunity to be heard on the merits of a bail cancellation application if their initial non-appearance was not willful.
Questions settled- Can a bail cancellation order based on non-appearance be set aside if the accused claims lack of service of notice?
- Is an accused required to surrender before the High Court to have a bail cancellation matter reconsidered on its merits?
- Should a bail cancellation order be set aside if it was passed due to procedural default rather than on the merits of the case?
- FACTORY MANAGER, SANDOZ (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs SAQLAIN H. NAQVI AND 91977 PLC 50 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1976-05-21Read full judgment →
- EXXON CORPORATION, NEW YORK, U. S. A. vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI1977 PLD Karachi 781 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-28Read full judgment →
- ESSO PAKISTAN FERTILIZER Co. LTD., KARCHI vs BASHIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 922 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-23Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES' UNION REGD. vs MESSRS 7-UP BOTTLING Co. LTD., LAHORE1977 PLC 183 · Labour Court · 1976-10-31Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES' UNION (REGD.) vs PAKISTAN CENTRAL COTTON COMMITTEE, KARACHI1977 PLC 503 · Labour Court · 1975-11-07Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs WAZIRALI INDUSTRIES, HYDERABAD1977 PLC 342 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-07-24Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs SANDOZ (PAKISTAN) LTD.1977 PLC 207 · Labour Court · 1976-02-27Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs PAKISTAN SECURITY PRINTING CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI AND araomart1977 PLD Karachi 790 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-03Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs PAKISTAN SECURITY PRINTING CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER1977 PLC 590 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-03Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs MESSRS SANDOZ PAKISTAN LTD., JAMSHORO1977 PLC 89 · Labour Court · 1975-05-06Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION (REGD.) vs PILOT HOTEL AND RESTAURANT, LAHORE1977 PLC 637 · Labour Court · 1976-03-23Read full judgment →
- EHSAN MUHAMMAD vs AZIZ AHMAD1977 PLC 655 · Labour Court · 1977-02-06Read full judgment →
- EASTERN EXPRESS Co. LTD. vs FIFTH SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 168 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-04Read full judgment →
- E WORKERS' UNION vs Mims DAWOOD HOSIERY MILLS, KARACHI1977 PLC 99 · Labour Court · 1975-05-23Read full judgment →
- E PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION vs ABDUL HAMID1977 PLC 336 · Labour Court · 1975-06-08Read full judgment →
- DREAMLAND CINEMA, MULTAN vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE1977 PLD Lahore 292 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an unregistered firm, incurred a business loss in the 1963-64 assessment year. Upon becoming a registered firm in 1964-65, it sought to carry forward and set off this loss against its profits under Section 24 of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer denied the set-off, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed it. Subsequently, the Tribunal reversed this, citing Explanation 2 to Section 24, added by the Finance Act, 1967, which prohibited such set-offs. The core legal question was whether this Explanation was declaratory and thus retrospective, applying to pending cases. The Court held that the amendment was indeed declaratory, intended to remove doubts and correct judicial interpretations that the legislature deemed erroneous. Consequently, the Court ruled that the amendment applied retrospectively to all pending cases, including the petitioner's. The key principle established is that statutes which are declaratory in nature, aimed at clarifying existing law or removing doubts, operate retrospectively and apply to pending litigation, even if they affect the outcome of cases not yet finalized.
Questions settled- Is a declaratory statute generally construed to have retrospective effect?
- Does the addition of an 'Explanation' to a statutory provision for the avoidance of doubt operate retrospectively on pending litigation?
- Can the loss of an unregistered firm be carried forward and set off against the profits of a registered firm under the Income-tax Act?
- Does the pendency of an appeal prevent a matter from being considered a 'past and closed' transaction for the purpose of applying a new statutory amendment?
- DR. AIJAZ HASSAN QURESHI vs WSW GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF PANJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 1304 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- DR. A. G. M. BARAKZAI vs SECRETARY, HEALTH SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1977 PLC (C. S. T.] 25 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Diwan ANWARUL ISLAM vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, RAWALPINDI AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 970 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAY, MULTAN vs HAJEE AND 391977 PLC 398 · Labour Court · 1975-05-25Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT RAILWAY, KARACHI vs KHADI KHAN1977 PLC 348 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-06-23Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPDT. PAKISTAN RAILWAY, MULTAN vs MUHAMMAD MURAD KHAN1977 PLC 203 · Labour Court · -Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI vs Mirza1977 PLC 269 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-10-10Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, S. R. T. C., KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM1977 PLC 696 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-15Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., LYALLPUR vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1977 PLC 563 · Labour Court · 1976-10-20Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 37 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-27Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD SHAKIR alias D. M. SHAKIR vs D. S. P., ICHHRA, LAHORE1977 PLD Lahore 180 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 challenged the police's authority to re-investigate a criminal case (FIR No. 750 of 1974) that had previously been cancelled by a Magistrate. The core legal question was whether the police could unilaterally re-investigate a case once a Magistrate had formally ordered its cancellation on the basis that the dispute was of a civil nature. The Court held that the re-investigation was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court established that while a Magistrate's cancellation order is administrative, it precludes the police from re-investigating the same matter without further authorization. The judgment laid down that to revive such a matter, the police must either move the Magistrate to recall the cancellation order, proceed on the basis of entirely fresh material, or direct the complainant to file a private complaint. The police cannot treat a matter as non-cognizable or civil in nature and simultaneously exercise investigative powers over it without judicial permission.
Questions settled- Can the police re-investigate a criminal case that has been formally cancelled by a Magistrate?
- Is the cancellation of a criminal case by a Magistrate an administrative or judicial act?
- What are the legal avenues available to the police if they wish to revive a case previously cancelled by a Magistrate?
- Does the police have the authority to investigate a matter deemed to be of a civil nature without the permission of a Magistrate?
- DILMIR vs AKBAR AND Other1977 SCMR 70 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court order granting bail to two respondents accused of murder and rioting under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court had distinguished the respondents from co-accused, reasoning that the deceased sustained no firearm injuries. The petitioner challenged this, citing a post-mortem report indicating blunt weapon injuries and arguing that the respondents, as members of an unlawful assembly, shared a common object. The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s order was based on a misreading of the record. The Court held that an accused armed with a firearm who participates in an unlawful assembly shares the common object, incurring vicarious liability under section 302 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, even if their specific shot did not cause the fatal injury. Furthermore, the Court determined that the delay in inquiry proceedings was not inordinate and did not justify bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and cancelled the respondents' bail, directing them to surrender to the Inquiry Magistrate.
Questions settled- Does an accused who is part of an unlawful assembly incur vicarious liability for murder even if their specific shot did not hit the victim?
- Can a bail order be set aside if it is based on a misreading of the medical evidence on record?
- Does the mere fact that a firearm shot fired by an accused went astray exempt them from liability under section 302 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- DILAWAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1054 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-19Read full judgment →
- DILAWAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 917 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-19Read full judgment →
- DIAMOND ICE FACTORY vs SHER BANG1977 PLC 349 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-06-24Read full judgment →
- DHARANI ENTERPRISES, KARACHI vs WSW THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 415 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- DH. ABDUL WADOOD vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH THE SECRETARY1977PLC[C.S.TJ]13 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1975-09-03Read full judgment →
- DAWOOI) FOUNDATION vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, EXCISE & TAXATION, SIN D, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 120 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- DARVESH M. ARBEY, ADVOCATE vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 846 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- D&. SAKHI MUHAMMAD BHUTTA vs Major KARAM MAUI ZIA AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 1441 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-28Read full judgment →