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.
- AMIN SHAH vs Tim STATE1977 P Cr. L J 631 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-20Read full judgment →
- AMIN GUL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 PLD Lahore 205 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-17Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH MALIK vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1977 PLC 1C.S.TJ 192 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1977-05-30Read full judgment →
- AMAN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 199 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-26Read full judgment →
- AM ANAT HUSSAIN vs Mat. MISRI BIBI AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 840 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-02Read full judgment →
- ALT NAWAZ vs THE STATE AND 2 GIBERS1977 P Cr. L J 956 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-01Read full judgment →
- ALLIED TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs VITd SIND LABOUR COURT, HYDERABAD1977 PLD Karachi 428 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-25Read full judgment →
- ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs BURIORJEE & Co., KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 765 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two connected suits for the recovery of damages for short delivery and cargo damage against foreign shipowners, charterers, and carriers, where the central legal question is whether the service of summons effected upon the local shipping agents of foreign defendants constitutes good service in law. The court examined the scope of agency under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and statutory duties under the Customs Act 1969. The holding of the court is that service of summons on a local shipping agent does not constitute valid service on foreign principals under Order V, rules 12, 13, or 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, unless the agent holds an explicit appointment in writing or a power of attorney to accept service or conduct business as a recognized agent. The court laid down the principle that a shipping agent performing statutory licensing duties under the Customs Act for various clients acts in their own name and does not possess an implied authority or independent discretionary power to receive legal process on behalf of foreign principals, necessitating direct service abroad under Order V, rule 25.
Questions settled- Whether the service of summons effected on the local shipping agent of a foreign vessel owner, charterer, or carrier constitutes good service in law under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a petition under rule 15 of the former Sind Chief Court Rules require support by an affidavit as an interlocutory application under rule 74?
- Must the appointment of a recognized agent for accepting service of process be made by an instrument in writing?
- Can a shipping agent licensed under the Customs Act 1969 be considered an agent carrying on business for a foreign principal so as to bind them for service of summons under Order V rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- ALMURTAZA TEXTILE MILLS vs A. T. M. WORKERS' UNION, HYDERABAD1977 PLC 473 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-12-29Read full judgment →
- ALLAH-UD-DIN vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, BATA; LAHORE1977 PLC 632 · Labour Court · 1976-12-01Read full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR vs SUERDIN, S. H. O. AND 57 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 413 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-16Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WASAYA vs The STATE1977 SCMR 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns whether the killing of the deceased, Nazar Hussain Shah, by the appellants, Allah Wasaya and Muhammad Amin, constituted murder under Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or fell under Exception I to Section 300 as culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to grave and sudden provocation. The appellants had apprehended the deceased near the house of a relative, suspecting an illicit liaison with a woman, tied his hands, transported him to a field, killed him with hatchets, and subsequently dismembered and buried the body parts. The core legal question was whether the appellants acted under the loss of self-control required by Exception I to Section 300. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants' actions—tying the deceased, transporting him a significant distance, killing him, and meticulously concealing the body—demonstrated premeditation rather than the loss of self-control. The Court affirmed that premeditation and the deprivation of self-control are incompatible, and therefore, the exception for grave and sudden provocation was not applicable to the facts of the case.
Questions settled- Does the act of tying, transporting, and then killing a victim negate the defense of grave and sudden provocation under Exception I to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Are premeditation and the deprivation of self-control compatible under the law of provocation?
- Does the concealment of a dead body and weapons of offense indicate premeditation in a homicide case?
- ALLAH RAKHIO KHAN vs MOHKMUDDIN AND 2 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 14 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-04Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHIO AND ANOTHER vs The STATE1977 SC M R347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for murder and attempted murder, specifically questioning the reliability of witness identification during a night-time incident. The core legal question was whether the prosecution witnesses could accurately identify the appellants in the light of the moon, given the distance and timing of the occurrence. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, affirming that the witnesses, who were familiar with the appellants, had sufficient visibility and opportunity to identify them. The Court held that the presence of natural witnesses was established, the medical evidence regarding the distance of the shots corroborated the ocular testimony, and the recovery of crime empties matching the appellant's licensed gun provided strong circumstantial proof. The principle laid down is that where accused persons are well-known to the witnesses, and the incident occurs in conditions—such as a full moon night—that allow for clear visibility, the lack of a formal identification parade does not invalidate the identification, and the testimony of natural, disinterested witnesses remains credible.
Questions settled- Is a formal identification parade necessary when the accused are already well-known to the prosecution witnesses?
- Can the testimony of witnesses regarding identification at night be relied upon if the night was a full moon and the witnesses were familiar with the accused?
- Does the delay in the disposal of a criminal case necessitate the commutation of a death sentence to transportation for life in cases of gruesome murder?
- Can the court impose compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial court failed to do so?
- ALLAH DITTA vs The STATE1977 SCMR 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Allah Ditta, for an unwitnessed double murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which convictions were upheld by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession, alleged motive, last-seen evidence, and various material recoveries, was sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the retracted extra-judicial confession was unreliable, the last-seen evidence was concocted and contradictory, and the investigative recoveries of weapons, clothes, and other items were entirely fake and uncorroborated. The Court laid down the principle that in cases of circumstantial evidence, if the foundational pieces of evidence such as recoveries and last-seen testimonies are found to be fabricated or unreliable, the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, necessitating the setting aside of the conviction and an acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether a retracted extra-judicial confession made to an unrelated person without corroboration is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction?
- Does the failure of prosecution recoveries and last-seen evidence warrant the setting aside of a conviction in an unwitnessed murder case?
- Can motive alone serve as sufficient proof of guilt in the absence of reliable connecting evidence?
- What is the evidentiary value of material recoveries when identification parades are not properly conducted?
- ALLAH DITTA vs MUHAMMAD ABDUR RAZZAQ AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 916 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-24Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD.1977 PLC 565 · Labour Court · 1976-08-22Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 63 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-17Read full judgment →
- ALIM KHAN vs MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN1977 PLD Karachi 308 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-13Read full judgment →
- ALIConvict vs THE STATEOpponent1977 P Cr. L J 136 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-12Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs BAGH ALI1977 P Cr. L J 891 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 204 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the initial complaint met the statutory definition of a complaint and whether the Assistant Commissioner acted with jurisdiction in directing an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without first examining the complainant on oath. The Court held that while the application constituted a valid complaint under Section 4(h), the Assistant Commissioner committed a jurisdictional illegality by referring the matter for inquiry without first recording the complainant's statement on oath as mandated by the proviso to Section 202. Furthermore, the Court found that the subsequent summoning of the petitioner was based on mere conjecture rather than evidence. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings. The key principle laid down is that the examination of a complainant on oath under Section 200 is a mandatory prerequisite before a Magistrate can direct an inquiry under Section 202, and failure to do so renders subsequent proceedings without jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does a complaint filed with a request for police inquiry fall under the definition of a complaint pursuant to Section 4(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the examination of a complainant on oath a mandatory prerequisite before a Magistrate can direct an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can proceedings initiated upon a complaint be quashed if the Magistrate failed to record the complainant's statement on oath before directing an inquiry?
- ALI MUHAMMAD AND 6 OTHERS vs SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND, HYDERABAD AND 9 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 747 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Jacobabad, rejecting the appellants' plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The appellants had challenged partition and allotment orders made by the Land Commission regarding agricultural lands resumed under Martial Law Regulation No. 64 (West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959), and sought declarations of entitlement and injunctions. The core legal questions involved whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging actions and allotments under the Land Reforms Regulations, and whether a court can reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 without a formal application from the defendant. The Sindh High Court held that the civil court's jurisdiction was expressly barred by paragraph 27 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 and that the grant of resumed land fell within the exclusive domain of the authorities. Furthermore, the court held that it is the inherent, mandatory duty of the court to examine a plaint and reject it under Order VII, Rule 11 if barred by law, even without an application or notice from the opposite party. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging partition and allotment orders made by the Land Commission under Martial Law Regulation No. 64?
- Can a court reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without a formal application or notice from the defendant?
- Is the exclusive authority to grant resumed land to tenants vested in the Government rather than the civil courts under the Land Reforms Regulations?
- What is the inherent duty of a court regarding the examination of a plaint to determine if it is barred by law?
- ALI MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND 71977 PLD Lahore 352 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-22Read full judgment →
- ALI JAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 PLD Lahore 349 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-06Read full judgment →
- ALI HUSSAIN vs RAFIQUDDIN AND 9 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 418 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arises out of an appellate order dismissing the petitioner's appeal regarding an objection petition in execution proceedings, which had been referred to a referee. The core legal question was whether an anticipatory objection petition filed by a third party in execution proceedings before actual dispossession or resistance is competent under Order XXI rules 99 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or under the inherent powers of the court under section 151. The Lahore High Court held that an anticipatory objection petition by a third party who has neither resisted execution nor been dispossessed is not maintainable under rules 99 or 101, nor can it be entertained by invoking the inherent powers of the court under section 151, as express statutory provisions exclude inherent jurisdiction. The court further held that no appeal lies against an order passed under section 151. The petition was consequently dismissed, establishing that third-party obstruction or objection in execution is strictly governed by specific statutory procedures and cannot be brought prematurely.
Questions settled- Is an anticipatory objection petition filed by a third person in execution proceedings competent before actual dispossession or resistance?
- Can the inherent powers of the court under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked to entertain objection petitions when express provisions exist in the Code?
- Does an appeal lie against an order passed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What is the distinction between a referee and an arbitrator in judicial proceedings?
- ALI HUSSAIN vs KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND 3 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 601 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-03Read full judgment →
- ALI AHMAD vs RIASAT ALI AND 4 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 1064 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-13Read full judgment →
- ALI A KBAR AND ANOTHER vs THE BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY1977 PLD Lahore 1075 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ALAM SHER AND 4 others vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-19Read full judgment →
- AL-NAWAZISH COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, KARACHI vs MESSRS COMMERCE1977 PLD Karachi 369 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-14Read full judgment →
- AKRAM vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 434 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-26Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR IQBAL PORI vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 8 OTHERSs1977 PLD Lahore 249 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-15Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR HUSSAIN vs COLLECTOR, LAHORE ETC.1977 PLD Lahore 1268 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-16Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 698 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-03Read full judgment →
- AKHLAQ AHMED vs THE STATEOpponent1977 P Cr. L J 196 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-12Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI vs GRAND BATTERIES, LAHORE1977 PLC 609 · Labour Court · 1976-04-04Read full judgment →
- AJMAL PERVEZ alias GUDDO vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1055 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-30Read full judgment →
- AITBAR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr, L J 114 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-24Read full judgment →
- AI3DUR RASHID vs SPECIAL JUDGE, CENTRAL. LAHORE AND ANOTHER-s1977 PLD Lahore 145 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-25Read full judgment →
- AHSAN MOQUIM ANSARI AND 6 OTHERS vs Mst. ASGHARI BEGUM ANSARI1977 PLD Karachi 551 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-31Read full judgment →
- AHSAN BEG vs THE STATE1977 PLD Lahore 1383 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-18Read full judgment →
- AHMED vs Mst. HAWA BAI1977 PLD Karachi 840 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-02Read full judgment →
- AHMED KHAN vs AGENT, T. J.-V., TARBELA DAM, HAZARA1977 PLC 366 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-04-21Read full judgment →
- AHMED DIN AND 5 OTHERS vs JAN MUHAMMAD AND 5 OTHERS1977 PLD Rev. 41 · Board of Revenue · 1977-02-15Read full judgment →
- AHMAD ZAMAN KHAN vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 13 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 735 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-14Read full judgment →
- AHMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 388 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-06Read full judgment →
- AHMAD NISAR AMIR KHAN vs THE STATE AHMAD NISAR AND ANOTHER1977 SCMR 175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The primary legal question concerned the reliability of a child witness's testimony and whether it required corroboration to sustain a conviction. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, finding the child witness's testimony credible and corroborated by surrounding circumstances, including the appellant's subsequent absconsion and the immediate lodging of the First Information Report. The Court affirmed that the absence of a proven motive does not invalidate the testimony of otherwise reliable eye-witnesses. Furthermore, the Court declined to interfere with the acquittal of the co-accused or the sentence awarded, noting that the prosecution failed to establish common intention for the co-accused. The judgment reinforces the principle that child witness testimony, if found trustworthy and consistent with the attending circumstances of the crime, is sufficient for conviction without requiring independent corroboration, and that absconsion serves as a significant incriminating factor.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a child witness without independent corroboration?
- Does the absence of a proven motive invalidate the testimony of otherwise reliable eye-witnesses?
- What is the evidentiary value of an accused's absconsion following the commission of a crime?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal order passed by a High Court?
- Ahmad MASTOO AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 PLD Karachi 354 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-27Read full judgment →
- AHMAD MANSOOR vs THE STATE1977 PLD Rev. 5 · Board of Revenue · 1976-10-18Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN vs FAIZ ALI AND 5 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 340 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-15Read full judgment →
- AHMAD JAN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 904 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-02Read full judgment →
- AHMAD DIN vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 761 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-17Read full judgment →
- AHMAD DIN vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 956 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-17Read full judgment →
- AHMAD DIN AND 5 Others vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER. LAHORE AND 24 Other1977 SCMR 232 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore regarding the disposal of servant quarters attached to a bungalow in Sahiwal under settlement laws. The core legal question concerned the legality of separating outhouses from the main property for transfer to displaced occupants and whether transferees could challenge such separation after consenting to it before settlement authorities. The Supreme Court held that the respondents were debarred from challenging the demarcation and separation of the servant quarters in writ proceedings having expressly consented to the same before the Settlement Commissioner, and that the High Court erred in holding that certain appellants had not applied for transfer when records showed otherwise. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the orders of the settlement authorities were restored.
Questions settled- Whether transferees who consented to the demarcation and separation of servant quarters from a main property before settlement authorities can subsequently challenge the same in writ proceedings?
- Whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner has the power to separate servant quarters from the main building for transfer to occupants?
- Whether failure to formally apply for transfer disentitles an occupant from retaining a servant quarter under settlement laws?
- AHMAD DIN alias AHMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 934 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-25Read full judgment →
- AHMAD BUX AND 6 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 921 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-03Read full judgment →
- AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 662 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of two appellants under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as handed down by the Sessions Court. The prosecution alleged that the appellants brutally murdered the deceased by severing his head and inflicting multiple incised wounds. The core legal questions involved the reliability of interested and chance eye-witnesses, the necessity of independent corroboration, and the evaluation of circumstantial evidence in a murder trial. The Sindh High Court held that the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses suffered from major contradictions and discrepancies, making them unreliable. Furthermore, the recovery mashirs were closely related to the complainant, failing to provide independent and trustworthy corroboration. Finding the prosecution's case unproven beyond a reasonable doubt, the court set aside the conviction and sentences, giving the appellants the benefit of the doubt, and declined to confirm the death sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related and chance witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration in a capital case?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the recovery mashirs are closely related to the complainant and lack independence?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt when material contradictions and discrepancies riddle the prosecution's eyewitness accounts?
- AHMAD ALI vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND Another1977 SCMR 48 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by special leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court allowing a criminal revision filed by respondent No. 1. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in remitting a private complaint for simultaneous disposal alongside a police challan case without issuing notices to the appellant and other accused persons during the revision proceedings under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court's remand order was unassailable as it did not direct the summoning of the accused without notice, and that the accused had already been independently summoned by the Magistrate upon evidence recorded under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, with their subsequent revision against that summoning having been dismissed and attained finality. The key principle laid down is that a remand order for the joint trial or disposal of a private complaint and a police challan case is sustainable where no procedural illegality is caused to the accused.
Questions settled- Whether a private complaint and a counter case based on a police report should be disposed of simultaneously by the Enquiry Magistrate?
- Can the High Court remit a case for fresh inquiry in a criminal revision without issuing notices to the accused persons?
- Does an order of remand passed by the High Court warrant interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of a procedural illegality?
- Agha ARBAB KHAWAR vs ROZENAMA GHARIB, LYALLPUR1977 PLC 540 · Labour Court · 1976-05-02Read full judgment →
- AGHA AHMED AND ANOTHER vs TEE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 950 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-17Read full judgment →
- AFZAL STORES vs SIND LABOUR COURT No. 5, KARACHI And 4 Others1977 P LC 587 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-06Read full judgment →
- AFZAL STORES vs SIND LABOUR COURT No, 5, KARACHI AND 4 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 756 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges orders passed by the Junior Labour Court and the Sindh Labour Court regarding the representation of workmen under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether Section 49(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 restricts a workman's representation exclusively to an officer of a Collective Bargaining Agent, or whether a workman may be represented by any other duly authorised person. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the words 'shall be entitled to be represented' confer a statutory right upon a workman to be represented by an officer of a Collective Bargaining Agent but do not exclude representation through another duly authorised person. The Court laid down the principle that statutory provisions granting a right of representation should be interpreted according to their plain and natural meaning without reading in exclusive or restrictive bars unless explicitly provided by the legislature, thereby avoiding absurdities or leaving workmen remediless in the absence of a Collective Bargaining Agent.
Questions settled- Whether Section 49 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 restricts a workman's representation exclusively to an officer of a Collective Bargaining Agent?
- Can a workman be represented in proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by a person other than an officer of a Collective Bargaining Agent?
- What is the legal effect and interpretation of the phrase 'shall be entitled to be represented' under Section 49 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- AFZAL alias PHALLAAccused vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 371 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-18Read full judgment →
- AFTAB AHMED SIDDIQUIYAND ANOTHER vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND OTHERS1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 117 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1976-11-18Read full judgment →
- ADAMJEE SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs MARKET COMMITTEE, BHAKK AR AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 115 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-03Read full judgment →
- ABU BAKAR vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 3 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 410 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUS SATTAR AND 2 mamas vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 453 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN vs Khawaja MUHAMMAD KHAN1977 PLD Rev. 50 · Board of Revenue · 1976-12-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 997 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1977-01-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 580 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHMAN vs FOREMAN, MILLWRIGHT LOCO SHOP, P. W. R., MOUGHALPURA AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLC 611 · Labour CourtRead full judgment →
- ADAM vs TDE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1107 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHMAN vs INSAAF SILK FACTORY1977 PLC 411 · Labour Court · 1975-05-30Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs THE STATE1977 PLD Quetta 32 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-04-19Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH KHAN vs SAHIB DAD KHAN AND Other1977 SCMR 186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by special leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court acquitting one respondent of charges under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and altering the conviction of the other respondent from section 307 to section 304(1) of the Code for causing the death of a bystander during a dispute over tree distribution. The core legal questions involve whether the doctrine of transferred malice under section 301 of the Code applies where an unintended person is killed while the assailant attempts to shoot another, and whether the evidence sufficiently establishes murder or if exceptions to culpable homicide apply. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the killing fell squarely within section 301 of the Code because the accused fired multiple shots with determination to kill an unarmed target, striking an intervening bystander instead, and that the High Court erred in applying Exception IV regarding sudden fight. The Court consequently set aside the altered conviction, convicted the main respondent under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder, sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life with fine as compensation, and dismissed the appeal against the co-respondent due to lack of corroborative evidence. The key principles established relate to the application of transferred malice and the strict interpretation of statutory exceptions to murder where undue advantage is taken.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of transferred malice apply under section 301 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when an unintended victim is killed during an attempt on another's life?
- Can Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be invoked when an accused acts with premeditation and takes undue advantage?
- Whether the uncorroborated ocular testimony against a co-accused is sufficient for conviction when material corroboration is absent.
- ABDULLAH BUTT vs S. H. MUZAFFAR ZAIDI1977 PLC 212 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1976-11-10Read full judgment →
- ABDULL vs EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER,F. & G. DIVISION, KARACHI AND 21977 PLD Karachi 702 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHAB vs THE STATE1977 PLD Quetta 56 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-05-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHAB vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 914 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 256 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR AND ANOTHER vs Tile STATE1977 P Cr. L J 741 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 905 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SAMAD vs MUHAMMAD ALI AND ANomna1977 PLD Lahore 687 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an order passed by an Additional District Judge who exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 115(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner contended that only the District Judge, as the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, possesses the authority to exercise revisional powers, and that an Additional District Judge lacks such competence. The core legal question was whether an Additional District Judge can exercise revisional jurisdiction when such business is assigned to them by the District Judge under the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Additional District Judge is competent to exercise such jurisdiction. The ratio is that the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, empowers the District Judge to assign functions and distribute civil business to the Additional District Judge. Upon such assignment, the Additional District Judge exercises the same powers as the District Judge. The principle established is that the special provisions of the Ordinance regarding the distribution of business and assignment of functions override the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Questions settled- Can an Additional District Judge exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 empower a District Judge to assign revisional functions to an Additional District Judge?
- Is the assignment of civil business by a District Judge to an Additional District Judge limited to ministerial acts?
- Does the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 override the special provisions of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 regarding the distribution of judicial business?
- ABDUL SALAM vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 788 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SAEED vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1971 P Cr. L J 952 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN vs THE THAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES AND Another1977 SCMR 244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from an interim order of the Lahore High Court directing the maintenance of status quo in a property dispute involving an auction sale. The appellant, an auction-purchaser, had acquired a factory in execution proceedings against a judgment-debtor. Following the rejection of objections filed by the respondent under Order XXI, Rule 99, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the sale was confirmed and possession delivered to the appellant. Subsequently, the High Court ordered the restitution of possession to the judgment-debtor, relying on precedent. The core legal question before the Supreme Court concerned the propriety of the High Court's interim order and whether it should interfere with the executing court's refusal to restore possession while a Civil Revision was pending. The Supreme Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the interim order, holding that it was more appropriate for the High Court to expedite the final disposal of the pending Civil Revision. The Court directed the parties to appear before the High Court Registrar to secure an early hearing date, thereby rendering the appeal infructuous.
Questions settled- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to adjudicate the legality of an interim order when the main Civil Revision remains pending in the High Court?
- Can the High Court order restitution of possession to a judgment-debtor pending the disposal of a Civil Revision regarding the validity of an auction sale?
- ABDUL REHMAN AND moms vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 681 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN AND ANOTHERS vs THE STATE1977 PLD Lahore 679 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 52 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 268 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 841 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASEIID AND 5 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 91 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHMAN vs WAHID BAKHSH AND 9 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 1243 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular First Appeal challenges the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for possession of agricultural land through the exercise of a superior right of pre-emption. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption suit is maintainable when a notification under subsection (2) of section 8 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, which barred pre-emption rights on Government grant lands, was in force at the time of the sale but was subsequently rescinded before the institution of the suit. The Lahore High Court held that a pre-emptor must possess the right of pre-emption in both its primary form at the time of the sale and its secondary form at the time of the institution of the suit and up to the passing of the decree. The Court ruled that since the notification extinguishing pre-emption was active on the date of the sale, the transaction was protected, and the subsequent rescission of the notification could not retroactively revive or create a right where none existed at the time of the sale. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Does a right of pre-emption exist at the time of sale if a notification under subsection (2) of section 8 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act is in force?
- Can the subsequent rescission of a notification under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act retroactively revive a right of pre-emption for a sale completed while the notification was active?
- What are the temporal requirements regarding the existence of a right of pre-emption for a suit to succeed?
- What is the effect of delegated legislation under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act on pre-emption claims?
- ABDUL RAHMAN MUJAHID vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 190 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1976-10-31Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHMAN AND ANOTHER vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER II AND ANOTHER- -s1977 PLD Lahore 576 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioners' application for the transfer of an evacuee building site. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of the term 'occupant' under the reconstituted Settlement Scheme No. VIII (1973), specifically whether a tenant in physical possession or the landlord who constructed the permanent structure on the site held the superior right to transfer. The Court held that while 'occupant' generally refers to the person in actual physical possession, in a competition between a landlord and a tenant, the landlord must be deemed the 'occupant' for the purposes of transfer. The Court reasoned that a tenant holds property on behalf of the landlord and cannot deny the landlord's title. Consequently, to prevent tenants from usurping property rights, the landlord is entitled to preference. The Court further established that the law in force at the time of the final decision, rather than the law at the time of the application, governs the transfer process. The petition was dismissed, affirming the respondent's right to the property.
Questions settled- Does the term 'occupant' under Settlement Scheme No. VIII (1973) include a tenant in physical possession when the landlord who constructed the building also claims the property?
- Is the right to transfer of evacuee property determined by the law in force at the time of the application or the law in force at the time of the final decision?
- Can a tenant in physical possession of an evacuee building site claim transfer in preference to the landlord who constructed the permanent structure on that site?
- ABDUL RAHIM AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS CONGOTHENE CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES1977 PLC 385 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUMAppeliant vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 980 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL NAEEM vs ABDUL SHAKOOR AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 750 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MALIK ETC. vs MUHAMMAD GHALIB ETC.S1977 SCMR 499(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application for review of the Supreme Court's order dismissing a petition for special leave to appeal, which had challenged the High Court's judgment maintaining a decree for redemption of mortgagee rights in land based on an acknowledgment of mortgage made in 1954 by the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest. The core legal question was whether the interpretation of evidence regarding an acknowledgment versus attestation on a Patwari's report constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. The Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the court may have taken a different view of the points urged is no ground to interfere in review, especially when no error on the face of the record or new evidence was shown. The key principle laid down is that a wrong view of points urged or mere disagreement with the court's earlier interpretation of evidence does not constitute an error on the face of the record sufficient to justify a review of the judgment.
Questions settled- Does a mere wrong view of the points urged by a petitioner constitute an error on the face of the record for the purposes of review?
- Is the interpretation of a seal on a Patwari's report as an acknowledgment rather than an attestation a sufficient ground for review?
- Can a review petition be entertained on the basis of facts and evidence that were already within the knowledge of the petitioner during the earlier proceedings?
- ABDUL MAJID vs GOVERNMENT OF AZAD J & K THROUGH CHIEF1977 PLC [C. S. T.] 152 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1977-01-25Read full judgment →