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.
- ABDUL MAJID AND ANOTHER vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA1977 SCMR 353 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of dispute concerning the transfer of portions of an evacuee double-storey building under settlement laws. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner originally transferred various rooms, shops, and a garage to different occupants. Subsequent clarification applications and appeals led to conflicting claims by the parties regarding the ownership and access rights to the first-floor room and the open roof over the ground floor portions. The Settlement Commissioner eventually ruled that open roofs are deemed transferred to the transferees of corresponding ground-floor portions, while granting the first-floor transferee a right of way across the roof for access. A writ petition and subsequent review petition before the High Court were dismissed in limine. Upon a petition for special leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the open roof belongs to the ground-floor transferees, but the first-floor transferee retains a reasonable right of passage to access their room. The Court partially allowed the appeal by directing settlement authorities to formally demarcate a specific passage over the roof to minimize inconvenience to the appellants.
Questions settled- Whether the open roof of a multi-storey evacuee building stands transferred entirely to the first-floor occupant or to the corresponding ground-floor transferees?
- Does the transferee of a room on the first floor possess a right of passage over the roof of ground-floor portions for access?
- Can settlement authorities demarcate a specific passage over a transferred roof portion to prevent future disputes between occupants?
- ABDUL MAJEED, FOREST GUARD, TEHSIL BHIMBER, MIRPUR, AZAD KASHMIR vs AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT THROUGH1977 PLC 1C.S.T.1 127 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1977-01-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED vs THE STATE1977 PLD Karachi 760 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife, sentenced to life imprisonment under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged the appellant killed his wife following a domestic dispute over meals. At trial, the primary eye-witnesses retracted their earlier statements given during the committal proceedings, prompting the prosecution to transfer those statements to the trial record under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a conviction could be sustained based solely on evidence transferred under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when witnesses turn hostile at trial. The Court held that while such evidence requires careful scrutiny, it may form the basis of a conviction if the witnesses are found to have retracted their testimony due to social pressure or bias rather than lack of truthfulness. The Court affirmed the conviction, establishing that where eye-witnesses have no motive for false implication and their earlier depositions are credible, their subsequent retraction at trial does not preclude reliance on their prior statements.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of statements transferred to the record under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a delay in recording a judicial confession render it inadmissible or devoid of evidentiary value?
- What is the legal status of the contents of a First Information Report in relation to substantive evidence at trial?
- ABDUL MAJEED vs MESSRS NAQSHBANDI INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI1977 PLC 283 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-10-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQUE vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 649 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs FAQIR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 716 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 614 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALID vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 929 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIMConvict vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 5 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 802 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JALIL alias JUMMAN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 150 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABEEN QURESHI vs MHSSRS KARACHI DOCK LABOUR BOARD1977 PLC 383 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR AND Another vs The STATE1977 SCMR 50 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the Lahore High Court in a murder case. The appellants, Abdul Jabbar and Abdul Sattar, were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Azam. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to bail, particularly considering the advanced age of one appellant and the delay in the trial. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that while the delay in trial was not a sufficient ground for bail due to expected administrative appointments, the case of the appellant Abdul Sattar was distinct. The Court determined that at 70 years of age, Abdul Sattar qualified as an infirm person under the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail to Abdul Sattar but refused bail to Abdul Jabbar, who was alleged to have inflicted the fatal blow.
Questions settled- Does advanced age constitute a ground for bail under the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the likelihood of delay in trial a sufficient ground for the grant of bail in a murder case?
- ABDUL HAMID vs VICE-CHAIRMAN, P. W. RAILWAY, LAHORE ETC.1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 85 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-03-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE CITY & TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD1977 PLD Karachi 575 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 pursuant to a police report. The report alleged general misconduct and cited two past criminal cases involving the petitioner: one under Section 294 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and another under Section 13(d) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, both of which had resulted in his discharge.
The High Court held that the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, being a special law affecting citizen liberty, must be strictly construed and complied with. It observed that the single instance under the Arms Ordinance (involving a knife) and the past charge under Section 294 PPC did not fall within any clause of Section 14 of the Act. Additionally, the Tribunal failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of recording the substance of the report under Section 5 before issuing a warrant. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction was based on a clear misreading of law. The proceedings and non-bailable warrant were quashed as being without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 can be initiated based on past cases that do not fall within the scope of Section 14 of the Act?
- Is the requirement under Section 5 of the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 to record the substance of the police report before issuing a warrant mandatory?
- Can a constitutional petition be entertained directly in the High Court without exhausting statutory remedies when the tribunal acts completely without jurisdiction?
- ABDUL HAMID SHAKIR vs VICE-CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAY AND OTHERS1977 PLC 389 · Labour Court · 1975-04-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID AND 3 Others vs Mst. SARDAR BEGUM AND 4 Other1977 SCMR 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of property in Lahore under the settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the Assistant Settlement Commissioner was required to provide notice and an opportunity of being heard to a claimant who had filed an N.C.H. form for the property before transferring it to another party. The respondent, Mst. Sardar Begum, had filed an N.C.H. form for the property but was denied transfer without notice, leading to a series of appeals and a writ petition. The High Court, in an intra-court appeal, condoned the delay and held that the respondent was entitled to be heard under the relevant settlement scheme, remanding the case for a fresh decision. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, dismissing the appeal. The key principle laid down is that under Settlement Scheme No. 1, an Assistant Settlement Commissioner is legally bound to serve notice to all applicants for a property and conduct an inquiry before finalizing a transfer; an ex parte transfer order made without considering competing applications is not a final, valid order.
Questions settled- Is an Assistant Settlement Commissioner required to serve notice to all applicants for a property before finalizing its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. 1?
- Can an ex parte transfer order of a property be considered final if a competing application for the same property was not considered?
- Does the failure to dispose of an N.C.H. form according to law justify remanding a property transfer case to the settlement authorities?
- ABDUL HAKEEM AND Another vs The STATE1977 SCMR 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of the appellants under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of a divorced wife in pursuance of an alleged custom. The core legal questions involved challenges to the credibility of prosecution evidence regarding tainted weapon recoveries, alleged discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, the sufficiency of motive, and the reliability of eye-witness testimony. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that minor discrepancies or the discarding of tainted weapon recoveries do not discredit otherwise truthful direct ocular testimony, and that a weak motive is inconsequential when direct and credible evidence establishes guilt. The court affirmed the principle that eye-witnesses under the stress and confusion of a fatal attack are not expected to give an exact, mathematical count of injuries.
Questions settled- Whether the discarding of tainted weapon recoveries by the police is sufficient to discredit otherwise reliable ocular evidence?
- Does a conflict between the exact number of injuries stated by eye-witnesses and those found in the medical report warrant the rejection of eye-witness testimony?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution's established motive is weak or vague?
- Whether the statement of a deceased witness recorded in the committal court can be lawfully brought on the record of the trial court?
- ABDUL GHANI vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 571 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs KANDERO AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 135 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending under Sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that he handed over two buffaloes to the applicant to sell at Karachi and remit the sale proceeds, but after selling them, the applicant failed and eventually refused to pay the agreed amount of Rs. 3,500. The core legal question was whether the failure to remit sale proceeds arising from an agreement to sell livestock constitutes criminal breach of trust or cheating, or merely creates a civil liability. The High Court held that the complaint disclosed no ingredients of Section 406 or Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as the livestock was handed over willingly and the dispute pertained solely to the recovery of money. The Court ruled that where criminality is absent from inception, a breach of contract is purely civil in nature, making a civil suit the proper remedy, and accordingly quashed the proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the non-payment of sale proceeds of goods handed over under a mutual agreement constitutes an offence under Section 406 or Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the dispute is purely of a civil nature for the recovery of money?
- Does the subsequent agreement to accept the sale proceeds of entrusted property eliminate any element of criminal liability?
- ABDUL GHANI AND ANOTHERs vs ALI LIASAN AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 375 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under the inherent jurisdiction seeking the quashment of proceedings initiated against the petitioners under sections 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 upon a complaint of criminal breach of trust and cheating. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings instituted with an ulterior motive to harass adversaries and settle collateral family disputes constitute an abuse of the process of the court. The Lahore High Court held that where circumstances clearly demonstrate that a criminal complaint has been filed to victimize the accused and force them to compromise unrelated civil or family litigation—such as a pending suit for dissolution of marriage—allowing the prosecution to continue is an abuse of process. The court established the principle that criminal process cannot be permitted to be used as an instrument of harassment or pressure tactics in the face of demonstrable mala fides and strained family relations.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be quashed if the complaint is found to be filed with an ulterior motive?
- Whether the initiation of criminal proceedings to exert pressure in a family dispute constitutes an abuse of the process of the court?
- Is it appropriate to quash a complaint at the initial summoning stage when mala fides and strained relations are evident?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs THE STATE AND 4 OTHERS1917 P Cr. L J 951 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs Haji MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1977 SCMR 217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts ordering the petitioner's eviction from a shop. The core legal question is whether the petitioner's failure to deposit rent within the time specified by the Rent Controller under subsection (6) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance was condonable on the ground of his sister's death. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner committed a willful default as the explanation regarding bereavement did not cover the entire period of delay, especially since requisite ceremonies would have concluded days before the deadline and the petitioner's shop remained open. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that a tenant must provide a continuous and satisfactory explanation for failing to comply with a mandatory rent deposit order.
Questions settled- Whether the death of a close relative constitutes a sufficient ground to excuse a tenant's delay in depositing rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Does a failure to explain a portion of the delay in depositing rent justify the Rent Controller in striking off the tenant's defence?
- ABDUL AZIZ vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 235 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ KHAN vs MESSRS PAKISTAN CABLES LTD., KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 474 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ alias AZIZ GOLO vs The STATE1977 P Cr. L J 60 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL ALI KHAN vs Haji KHUDA BAKHSH1977 PLD Lahore 510 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-20Read full judgment →
- ABBASI TEXTILE MILLS LTD., RAHIMYAR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD QASIM1977 PLC 498 · Labour Court · 1976-04-12Read full judgment →
- ABBAS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 507 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-20Read full judgment →
- ABBAS ETC. vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 421 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-02Read full judgment →
- ABAIDURREHMAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 204 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-08Read full judgment →
- A. R. SOOFI vs WAPDA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY1977 PLD Lahore 61 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-01Read full judgment →
- A. M. KHAN vs E.A.D. A, LYALLPUR AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLC 104 · Labour Court · 1975-06-30Read full judgment →
- (Service Tribunal Azad J & K) Kh. AHMAD DIN vs GOVERNMENT OF AZAD J & K1977 PLC [C. S. T.] 149 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- (Service Tribunal Azad J & K) GHULAM AHMED vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 56 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1976-12-21Read full judgment →
- MESSRS COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LAHORE vs THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES1976 PLD Lahore 243 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-05Read full judgment →
- MESSRS CHLORIDE (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI vs TALAT FARUQ1976 PLC 335 · Labour Court · 1975-12-01Read full judgment →
- MESSRS CELLUKO INDUSTRIES, KARACHI vs PEOPLE's LABOUR UNION1976 PLC 187 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-01-21Read full judgment →
- MESSRS BURMAH OIL MILLS LTD. vs MESSRS BENGAL OIL MILLS LTD., KARACHI1976 PLD Karachi 544 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-23Read full judgment →
- MESSRS BRITISH INDIA ENGINEERING WORKS, KARACHI vs VTH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1976 PLC 277 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-09Read full judgment →
- MESSRS BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INTERNATIONAL (P. R.) INC., U. S. A. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE1976 PTD 67 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MESSRS ASIATIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., LYALLPUR vs IKRAMUL HAQ1976 PLC 845 · Labour Court · 1975-01-23Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ASIAN FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI vs PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 1056 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-14Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ASIAN FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI vs PAKISTAN THROUGH TBH1976 PLD Karachi 1056 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-14Read full judgment →
- MESSRS AMIN SOAP FACTORY vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND Other1976 PLD Supreme Court 277 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment upholding a government notification that granted excise duty exemption on laundry soap only to manufacturers operating without power, steam, or gas, and having no financial interest in other industrial or commercial enterprises. The appellant contended that the Central Government, under Section 12-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944, lacked the authority to make exemptions conditional upon the status of the manufacturer, arguing the exemption must relate solely to goods. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the government’s power to grant exemptions under Section 12-A is broad and discretionary, encompassing the authority to impose reasonable terms and conditions. The Court held that the exemption remained fundamentally attached to the goods, and the conditions served a valid public policy of protecting small-scale cottage industries. The Court affirmed that it is not the judiciary's role to question the wisdom of such policy-based conditions, provided they are not arbitrary. Consequently, the impugned notification was declared intra vires the powers conferred by the Act.
Questions settled- Does the power to grant tax exemptions under Section 12-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 include the authority to impose conditions on the manufacturer?
- Is a government notification granting excise duty exemption conditional upon the manufacturer's lack of financial interest in other enterprises ultra vires?
- Can the judiciary question the wisdom of conditions imposed by the government when granting tax exemptions under a statute?
- MESSRS ALLIED SILK MILLS, KARACHI vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 2 OTHERS1976 PLC 198 · Sindh High Court · 1975-08-28Read full judgment →
- MESSRS AFTAB MEDICAL STORES vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1976 PTD 242 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-23Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ADIL Brother KARACHI LTD. vs MESSRS AMIN ART PRESS AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 53 · Sindh High Court · 1974-12-22Read full judgment →
- MESSRS AD1L BROTH RS KARACHI LTD. vs AMIN MESSRS AMIN AKA PRESS AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 53 · Sindh High Court · 1974-12-23Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ABDUL MAJEED KHAN vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 446 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-16Read full judgment →
- MESSRS ABDUL HANNA N FOOD INDUSTRIES vs SIND LABOUR COURTI AND 21976 PLD Karachi 286 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-15Read full judgment →
- Messes MACDONALD LAYTON & COSTAIN LTD. vs MESSRS AVARI HOTELS LTD.1976 SCMR 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner was awarded a contract by the respondent for the construction of the Lahore Hilton hotel, which included a provision for a mobilisation fund secured by a bank guarantee issued through National & Grindlays Bank Ltd. Upon stoppage of construction work by the petitioner, the respondent sought encashment of the bank guarantee, leading to a dispute. The petitioner filed an application under sections 20 and 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan seeking an interim injunction to restrain the respondent from encashing the bank guarantee. The High Court dismissed the application and refused the injunction. The petitioner filed an intra-court appeal which was admitted for hearing. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the matter ought to be decided first by the High Court in the pending appeal and accordingly dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can an application under sections 20 and 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 be maintained to restrain the encashment of a bank guarantee?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with interlocutory matters pending adjudication before the High Court?
- Messes FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD. vs THE 4TH JUNIOR LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND 6 Other1976 PLD Karachi 98 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-13Read full judgment →
- MESSERS HABIB SUGAR MILLS LTD., KARACHI. vs Mst. RABIA BIBI1976 PLC 94 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-12-23Read full judgment →
- MESSERS FULBRITE (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI vs MESSRS UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHIPLD 1976 Karachi 478` · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mesas KHYBER TOBACCO Co. LTD. MARDAN vs LABOUR UNION AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Peshawar 8 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan challenged an order of the Labour Court, which had accepted the application of the Khyber Tobacco Labour Union under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, directing the employer company to pay a statutory bonus under Standing Order 10-C(1) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The core legal questions involved whether a collective settlement substituting a bonus in lieu of the statutory bonus under Standing Order 10-C was valid, whether prior contractual bonuses formed part of wages, and whether the application was competent under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Peshawar High Court held that the settlement was void to the extent it deprived workers of their statutory rights or was less favorable, and that prior contractual bonuses paid irrespective of profits constituted part of wages. The court further held that discretionary writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to perpetuate an injustice. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a collective agreement can waive or deprive workers of the statutory bonus guaranteed under Standing Order 10-C of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Whether bonus payments made prior to the introduction of Standing Order 10-C, which were not linked to company profits, constitute a part of the workers' wages?
- Whether an application by a collective bargaining agent seeking the payment of statutory bonus is maintainable under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Whether the High Court can refuse to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution when setting aside an order would result in manifest injustice to the workers?
- Members Mst. KARIM BIBI vs ABID ALI ETC1976 PLD Revenue 75 · Board of Revenue · 1976-10-15Read full judgment →
- MEHRBAN ALI vs Haji MUHAMMAD QASIM1976 PLD Lahore 1052 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal was filed against the orders of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, Multan, which had directed the ejectment of the appellant-tenant on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The appellant, who had occupied the shop since 1959, contended that the respondent-landlord had established a practice of accepting rent periodically in lump sums rather than monthly, as evidenced by multiple rent receipts. The core legal question was whether a landlord's consistent practice of accepting rent periodically after intervals alters the strict monthly payment terms of a tenancy agreement, thereby precluding a finding of willful default. The Lahore High Court accepted the appeal and set aside the ejectment orders. The Court held that where a landlord's conduct and multiple receipts demonstrate a practice of accepting rent periodically, the tenant may genuinely believe that such payments do not constitute default. Consequently, in the absence of deliberate default, the Rent Controller's discretion to order eviction should not be exercised against the tenant.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's consistent practice of accepting rent periodically in lump sums modify the strict monthly payment terms of a tenancy agreement?
- Can a tenant be held to be in willful default if the landlord's conduct of accepting rent after intervals created a genuine impression that such payment was acceptable?
- How should a Rent Controller exercise discretionary eviction powers when a deliberate default in rent payment is not conclusively established?
- MEHRAM AND Others vs The STATE1976 SCMR 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the conviction of the appellants under Section 201 read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an appeal where the High Court had set aside their original murder convictions. The core legal question concerned the legality of the High Court's order convicting the appellants under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without affording them an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances. During the proceedings, the counsel for the appellants stated that he had instructions not to press the appeal because the appellants had already undergone the sentences imposed upon them. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the convictions and sentences. The key principle established is that an appeal may be dismissed as not pressed when the appellants have already served the awarded sentences.
Questions settled- Can an appeal be dismissed as not pressed when the appellant has already undergone the sentence?
- Whether a conviction under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires an opportunity to explain circumstances?
- MEHR KHAN vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 519 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-13Read full judgment →
- MEHR DIN AND Others vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND Other1976 SCMR 473 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court summarily dismissing a revision petition against an interim injunction granted in a canal water dispute. The core legal question concerned whether an order passed by a Sub-Divisional Canal Officer regarding water supply fell under section 20 or section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act, and whether a temporary injunction could be granted against such an order during the pendency of a civil suit. The Supreme Court held that expressing definitive views on the statutory applicability would prejudice the pending trial, and since the interim order merely maintained the status quo between the parties, the Court declined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower courts. The petition was dismissed with a direction to the trial court to expedite and conclude the suit within three months.
Questions settled- Whether an interim injunction can be granted against an order passed by a Canal Officer under the Canal and Drainage Act during the pendency of a civil suit?
- Does a dispute involving the shifting of a watercourse fall under section 20 or section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with an interlocutory order that merely maintains the status quo between the parties?
- MEAT AND CATTLE MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION (REGD.), KARACHI vs KARACHI1976 PLD Karachi 373 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-01Read full judgment →
- Maulvi GHULAM RASOOL vs ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, SIND AND Another1976 SCMR 73 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Khatib and Pesh Imam, challenged the termination of his employment by the Auqaf Department. Originally employed by a religious society since 1952, the petitioner accepted a fresh appointment letter from the Auqaf Department in 1969, which explicitly stipulated that his service was purely temporary and terminable on one month's notice or payment in lieu thereof. Following the termination of his services in 1974, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, contending that his long-standing service conferred a status of permanency. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, upholding the contractual terms of the new engagement. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision. The Court held that the petitioner's employment with the Auqaf Department constituted a new engagement governed by the specific terms of the appointment letter, which he had accepted. The Court further noted that there was no evidence suggesting his prior employment with the society was permanent. Consequently, the principle established is that an employee who accepts a new contract with specific temporary terms cannot claim permanency based on previous service history.
Questions settled- Does a fresh appointment letter with explicit temporary terms supersede prior service history in determining employment status?
- Can an employee claim permanent status based on long-standing service if the subsequent contract of employment is explicitly temporary?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against the termination of a purely temporary employee whose services were dispensed with according to the terms of their appointment?
- Maulvi ABDUL HANAN vs KHIZAR HAYAT AND 14 OTHERS1976 PLD Peshawar 36 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-06-26Read full judgment →
- Maulvi ABDUL HANAN vs KHIZAR HAYAT AND 14 Other1976 PLD Peshawar 36 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-06-26Read full judgment →
- Maulana DOS T MUH A M MAD vs Tin STATE1976 P Cr. L J 184 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashing of proceedings pending against the petitioner under Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the Court of the District Magistrate, Nawabshah. The core legal questions centered on whether the prosecution had been validly initiated under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where the Provincial Government had specifically authorized the Superintendent of Police to file a complaint, but the Superintendent instead directed the Station House Officer to register an FIR and submit a police report (challan). The High Court held that Section 124-A creates a non-cognizable offence and Section 196 creates a mandatory bar to taking cognizance except upon a complaint made by or under the authority of the designated government or authorized officer. The Superintendent of Police had no authority to sub-delegate the duty to file a complaint or to order the registration of an FIR, and a police report under Section 173 cannot constitute a valid 'complaint' under Section 4(1)(h). The Court quashed the proceedings, clarifying that the authorities remained free to institute fresh proceedings in strict compliance with Section 196.
Questions settled- Can a police report or challan submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be treated as a valid complaint under Section 4(1)(h)?
- Can an officer authorized by the Provincial Government under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to file a complaint further delegate that authority to a subordinate police officer?
- Does the failure to comply with the statutory requirements of Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalidate the trial court's order taking cognizance of a non-cognizable offence?
- MAULA DAD alias MAULADonor vs THE STATEDonee1976 PLD Revenue 24 · Board of Revenue · 1973-06-29Read full judgment →
- MAULA BUX vs THE STATE1976 PLD Karachi 1188 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-06Read full judgment →
- MATAH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 426 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-10Read full judgment →
- MAST ALI vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 400 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-01Read full judgment →
- MASROORUL HASSAN vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 212 · Sindh High Court · 1975-02-04Read full judgment →
- MASOOD-UL-HASSAN QURESHI vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH Its1976 PLD Lahore 630 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-07Read full judgment →
- MASOOD SULTAN vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 499 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-17Read full judgment →
- MASOOD IQBAL AHMED vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 1141 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-10Read full judgment →
- MASOOD IQBAL AHMED vs THE STATE AHD ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 1141 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-10Read full judgment →
- MASOOD ARMED vs THE GOVERNMENT OF SIND, THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME1976 PLD Karachi 311 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-21Read full judgment →
- MASHKOOR KHAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 468 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-31Read full judgment →
- MASHKI SWEEPERS' UNION vs REGISTRAR TRADE UNIONS, MULTAN AND 21976 PLC 114 · Labour Court · 1974-11-15Read full judgment →
- MARROO KHAN vs ABBASI TEXTILE MILLS LTD., RAHIMYAR KHAN1976 PLC 735 · Labour Court · 1976-08-04Read full judgment →
- MARKER EMPLOYEES UNION vs MARKER ALKALOIDS LTD. AND Other1976 SCMR 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which had declared a notice of strike issued by the appellant employees union illegal under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, due to non-compliance with the timelines and procedures of section 26. The core legal question was whether the procedural requirements, time limits, and use of the word 'may' under section 26 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, are mandatory or directory, and whether a strike notice becomes invalid if bilateral negotiations or the ensuing notice are delayed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the Labour Court's decision which had upheld the notice. The ratio decidendi is that the time periods and procedural steps stipulated in section 26 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, are directory and intended to promote expedition and industrial harmony rather than act as mandatory conditions precedent whose strict breach invalidates a strike notice. The key principle laid down is that beneficial labor statutes must be interpreted to foster harmony and avoid frustrating statutory remedies through technical time defaults.
Questions settled- Whether the time limits prescribed under section 26 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for bilateral negotiations and strike notices are mandatory or directory?
- Does a failure to enter into bilateral negotiations within ten days after the rejection of a demand render a subsequent strike notice illegal?
- Whether the provisions of a beneficial labor statute concerning notices should be interpreted in the same manner as property rights statutes?
- MAQSOOD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L I 1354 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-19Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL KHAN vs M. MUNSIF AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 1217 · Sindh High Court · 1975-08-25Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMED vs INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SIND AND 2 OTHERS1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 96 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1975-09-17Read full judgment →
- MAQBOOL AHMAD vs THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, LAHORE1976 SCMR 500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing an appeal against the order of the District Judge, Lahore. The petitioner had sought a declaration under Section 7 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance 1959 that 93 kanals and 1 marla of land attached to the Shrine of Hazrat Khawaja Khawind Mahmood was not waqf property following its notification under Section 6 of the Ordinance by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf. The court examined whether the land constituted waqf property and whether the petitioner had the locus standi to file the petition under Section 7. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings that the land had been used from time immemorial for religious, pious, or charitable purposes, rendering it waqf property. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a mutwalli with no personal interest in the endowment cannot maintain a petition under Section 7 of the Ordinance. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a mutwalli without any personal interest in an endowment maintain a petition under Section 7 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance 1959?
- Does property used from time immemorial for religious, pious, or charitable purposes constitute waqf property under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance 1959?
- MANZOORUL HAMEED vs UMATUL HAFEEZ AND OTHERS1976 PLC 305(1) · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-01-07Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR vs The STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1157 · Lahore High Court · 1975-08-31Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs NAWAZISH NAZIR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Lahore 637 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a summary ejectment order passed against the appellant-tenant under Section 13(6) of the relevant rent restriction framework for failing to furnish security for arrears of rent. The core legal question concerns whether the execution of an agreement to sell the property by the landlord in favour of the tenant terminates the relationship of landlord and tenant, thereby attracting the protection of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, and whether an appellate court can directly order summary ejectment for non-compliance with a conditional stay order. The Lahore High Court held that once an agreement to sell is executed and possession is held or continued thereunder, the original relationship of landlord and tenant ceases to exist, serving as a valid defense against ejectment under Section 53-A. The Court ruled that the Rent Controller erred in determining the relationship without first recording evidence on the execution of the agreement to sell, and that the District Judge improperly ordered summary ejectment and struck off the defense instead of merely vacating a conditional stay order. The case was remanded for fresh determination.
Questions settled- Does the execution of an agreement to sell by a landlord in favour of a tenant terminate the relationship of landlord and tenant under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Can a Rent Controller determine the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant without recording evidence on the plea of an agreement to sell?
- Does Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 apply when the default in rent allegedly occurred prior to the execution of the agreement to sell?
- Can an appellate authority pass a direct order of summary ejectment and strike off the defense for the non-fulfillment of a condition attached to a stay order?
- MANZOOR GLASS AND CERAMICS LTD., KARACHI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE), ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 410 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from a dispute where the petitioner, a private limited company, was served with a show-cause notice for evading Central Excise duty, Sales-tax, Defence Surcharge, and Rehabilitation Tax. The petitioner claimed amnesty under Martial Law Regulation No. 32, asserting that its stocks had been declared and assessed under the regulation. The respondent authorities rejected the explanation, assessed the duty, and imposed a penalty. On revision, the first respondent remanded the matter to the Collector for re-assessment of the quantity of bottles and exclusion of those removed before a certain date, but simultaneously confirmed the penalty of Rs. 75,000. The High Court considered whether a penalty could be legally sustained and confirmed when the underlying assessment of tax evasion was itself remanded for fresh determination. The Court held that since penalty is directly relatable to the actual evasion of duty, confirming the penalty while remanding the matter for re-assessment was inconsistent and unlawful. The Court declared the confirmation of the penalty without lawful authority, while leaving the remand proceedings unaffected.
Questions settled- Can a penalty for tax evasion be legally sustained or confirmed when the underlying assessment of the tax liability is remanded for fresh determination?
- Is a penalty order enforceable if it is inconsistent with a remand order directing the re-assessment of the quantum of evaded goods?
- MANZOOR ELAHI AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1414 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-04Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMED KHALID vs MANAGER, COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD.1976 PLC 241 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-11-06Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK AND Another vs THE JUDGES OF THE LAHORE HIGH COURT1976 PLD Supreme Court 608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal under Article 185(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court convicting the appellants—editor and publisher of a weekly magazine—of contempt of court. The contempt proceedings were initiated due to an article published that commented on a pending sub judice contempt matter involving the President of the Lahore High Court Bar Association and made wild, unsubstantiated allegations against specific lawyers related to High Court judges, insinuating judicial bias and favoritism. The core legal questions revolved around whether the published article constituted a comment on a pending matter and scandalized the court, whether the defense of fair comment or reliance on bar association resolutions applied, and the adequacy of the show-cause notice. The Supreme Court held that the article clearly prejudged a pending matter and brought the administration of justice into disrepute by imputing bias based on mere gossip, thereby committing contempt under Article 204(2)(b) and (c). The court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence, reducing the imprisonment to the period already undergone while increasing the fine.
Questions settled- Does a publication commenting on the merits of a pending contempt proceeding constitute an interference with the course of justice?
- Whether the defense of fair comment is available in a charge of contempt by scandalizing a court or judge?
- Is the reproduction or restatement of a bar association resolution containing defamatory imputations against judges a valid defense to a charge of contempt?
- Does a show-cause notice for contempt that specifies the offending article sufficiently apprise the accused of the nature of the charge when they fail to request further particulars?
- MANZOOR AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 770 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1974-10-06Read full judgment →
- MANSOOR ALI vs REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 663 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-16Read full judgment →
- MANSOOR AHMAD vs Z. H. KHAWAJA1976 PLD Karachi 526 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-13Read full judgment →
- MANGIO vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 243 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of his former wife. The core legal question concerns the reliability of ocular testimony provided by interested witnesses when it conflicts with medical evidence and when statutory requirements for recovery of incriminating evidence are not met. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It found that the ocular testimony was not only interested but also irreconcilably contradicted by the medical evidence regarding the number and nature of injuries. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the recovery of the weapon was legally flawed due to the failure to comply with mandatory search procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment reaffirms the principle that when ocular testimony is interested and lacks independent corroboration, and is further belied by medical evidence, it is unsafe to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case, including any motive, and that procedural lapses in evidence recovery undermine the prosecution's narrative.
Questions settled- Does a conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number and nature of injuries render the prosecution's case unreliable?
- Is the recovery of a weapon at the pointation of an accused valid if the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not followed?
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of interested witnesses when that testimony lacks independent corroboration and is contradicted by other evidence?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to establish a motive, after having set one up, weaken the overall case against the accused?
- MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE vs SAFDAR1976 PLC 154 · Labour Court · 1973-12-28Read full judgment →
- MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT .1 BOARD vs PUNJAB1976 PLC 747 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-01Read full judgment →
- MANAGING DIRECTOR, GHULAM HOSIERY No.1, LYALLPUR vs MUHAMMAD SHAM1976 PLC 891 (1) · Labour Court · 1975-01-27Read full judgment →
- MANAGING DIRECTOR, GHULAM HOSIERY No.1 vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, SARGODHA REGION, LYALLPUR AND ANOTHER1976 PLC 889(2) · Labour Court · -Read full judgment →
- MANAGING DIRECTOR, GHULAM HOSIERY No.1 vs REGISTRAR, LABOUR UNIONS1976 PLC 889(1) · Labour Court · 1975-01-27Read full judgment →