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.
- MAN SOO RAIWAD vs Z. H. KHAWAJA1976 PLD Karachi 526 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-13Read full judgment →
- Malik WAHID BAKHSH vs Ch. MUHAMMAD SHAFI1976 PLD Lahore 1069 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land in Multan. The central legal question was whether the sale price of Rs. 52,000, as recorded in the registered sale deed and endorsed by the Sub-Registrar, represented the genuine consideration paid, or if the actual price was Rs. 26,000, as alleged by the pre-emptor to defeat the right of pre-emption. The High Court upheld the lower appellate court’s decision, holding that the endorsement of a Sub-Registrar, while carrying a presumption of truth, is a rebuttable presumption. The Court established that once a pre-emptor provides evidence that the market value is significantly lower than the stated sale price, the burden of proof shifts to the vendee to justify the higher price paid. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it is the duty of the court to ascertain the genuine and actual price paid, regardless of the recitals in the deed. As the lower appellate court’s finding of fact regarding the actual price was based on a reasonable appraisal of evidence, the High Court declined to interfere.
Questions settled- Is the endorsement of a Sub-Registrar on a sale deed regarding the payment of sale price a rebuttable presumption?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the vendee to justify the sale price once a pre-emptor proves the market value is significantly lower than the stated price?
- Can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact made by a lower appellate court if that finding is based on a reasonable appraisal of evidence?
- Malik TOFAZZAL HUSSAIN AND Another vs THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND 2 OHTERS1976 SCMR 525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the High Court which allowed a Letters Patent Appeal and maintained the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner's order directing a re-auction of the disputed shop. The core legal question concerns the validity of setting aside a property auction and whether a provisional transfer order confers title without confirmation and full payment. The Supreme Court held that a Provisional Transfer Order does not transfer title to the purchaser, particularly when the auction proceedings are irregular, not confirmed, and the full price has not been paid. The court laid down the principle that mere issuance of a provisional transfer order, absent auction confirmation and full payment of the purchase price, does not vest absolute title in the auction purchaser so as to bar the competent authority from ordering a re-auction upon discovering irregularities.
Questions settled- Does a Provisional Transfer Order confer absolute title to an auction purchaser prior to confirmation and full payment?
- Can a competent authority order a re-auction of property when initial auction proceedings are found to be irregular?
- Whether an auction purchaser acquires vested rights in property without the confirmation of the auction?
- Malik TAIMUR SHAH vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX1976 PLD Karachi 1030 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-15Read full judgment →
- Malik TAIMUR SHAH vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX1976 PLD Karachi 1030 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-15Read full judgment →
- Malik TAIMUR SHAH vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1976 PTD 246 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-15Read full judgment →
- Malik NOOR MOHAAND Another vs DISTRICT COUNCIL, JHANG THROUGH CHIEF OFFICER, DISTRICT COUNCIL MANG AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Lahore 916 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-27Read full judgment →
- Malik NOOR ALAM vs Ch. SAEED AKHTAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GUJRANWALA1976 PLD Lahore 350 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-02Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD AMUR AND Other vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, COLONY1976 PLC 193 · Labour Court · 1976-10-15Read full judgment →
- Malik KHAN BAHADUR KHAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND1976 SCMR 365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order of the Sind Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding a claim for arrears of salary for the period between 1st March 1956 and 29th April 1960. The petitioner, originally recruited in the Punjab Constabulary, was transferred to Karachi, subsequently retired, and later reinstated with the period of his absence treated as duty. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim these salary arrears from the Province of Sind based on his place of employment and retirement, or whether his claim lay against the Province of Punjab. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the petitioner's domicile of origin remained in the Punjab. The Court held that a fresh domicile is not acquired merely by transfer from one administrative unit to another within the country. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner's claim for arrears, if valid, must be directed against the province of his domicile and initial recruitment, rather than the province where he was merely transferred or retired.
Questions settled- Does a government servant acquire a fresh domicile in a province merely by being transferred there for service?
- Against which province should a claim for salary arrears be filed when a government servant is transferred between administrative units?
- Is the domicile of origin easily shaken by temporary employment transfers?
- Malik JAVED MAHMOOD AND Another vs TALIB HUSSAIN ABBASI AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Supreme Court 802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that set aside a Magistrate’s directive regarding the possession of a disputed property. Following the death of a tenant, the landlord sought to regain possession of a room, alleging it was abandoned and required repairs. The Magistrate, invoking Section 25 of the Police Act, 1861, ordered the police to open the premises, inventory the contents, and transfer possession. The core legal question was whether an order passed under Section 25 of the Police Act is purely executive in nature, thereby insulating it from judicial review, or whether it involves a lis affecting property rights. The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate’s order was improper and that the dispute was essentially civil. The Court rejected the contention that Section 25 orders are immune from review, affirming that such orders, by affecting property rights, constitute a lis subject to judicial scrutiny. The principle laid down is that criminal courts cannot be utilized to resolve civil property disputes, and orders under Section 25 of the Police Act are not purely executive acts beyond the reach of the High Court's inherent powers.
Questions settled- Is an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 25 of the Police Act, 1861, purely an executive act immune from judicial review?
- Does an order under Section 25 of the Police Act, 1861, involve a lis affecting the rights of the parties?
- Can criminal law provisions be invoked to resolve a civil dispute regarding the possession of property?
- Malik IJAZ HUSSAIN AND 3 Others vs CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND 21976 SCMR 513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the recovery proceedings initiated against them by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, under Martial Law Regulation 241 for outstanding loans taken from the Central Co-operative Bank Limited. The core legal question concerned the legality of attaching and selling the petitioners' entire agricultural land holdings exceeding the specified areas pledged for the loans, and whether interference was warranted given the admitted liability. The Supreme Court held that since the liability was admitted and the petitioners had previously agreed before the High Court to pay the outstanding amount by instalments, no justification existed for interference with the recovery proceedings. The Court concluded that the petition must be dismissed, while noting that the unconditional offer previously made by the Assistant Registrar for the return of property upon payment could still be availed of by the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that where a debtor admits liability and undertakes to pay instalments, discretionary constitutional or appellate relief will be withheld against recovery proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere in recovery proceedings where the debtor's liability is admitted and an undertaking to pay by instalments was given before the High Court?
- Can an unconditional offer made by a departmental authority during proceedings be availed of by a debtor to recover attached property?
- Whether attachment and sale of entire land holdings is open to challenge when the debtor defaults on admitted loan repayments?
- Malik GHULAM JILANI vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE1976 PLD Lahore 38 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns habeas corpus petitions filed by political figures challenging their detention in the Punjab while facing criminal charges in Baluchistan. The core legal questions addressed whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to review the legality of detention for prisoners held within its territorial boundaries, and whether transferring under-trial prisoners outside the jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate rendered their detention unlawful. The Court held that while it maintained jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to examine the legality of detention within its territory, it could not quash criminal proceedings pending in another province, as that authority rested with the competent courts in Baluchistan. The Court further determined that the detention was lawful, as no specific law prohibits detaining under-trial prisoners outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate. Moreover, the Court found no violation of Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding the right to be informed of arrest grounds or legal counsel. Consequently, the Court vacated its prior restraint order, allowing the authorities to transfer the prisoners to Baluchistan for trial.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to review the legality of detention of prisoners held within its territorial jurisdiction, even if the trial is pending in another province?
- Is the detention of an under-trial prisoner illegal solely because they are held outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate?
- Does the failure to produce an under-trial prisoner before a Magistrate periodically violate Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings pending against an accused in another province?
- Malik FAZAL ELAHIVendor vs THE STATE AND OTHERS1976 PLD Revenue 56 · Board of Revenue · 1973-02-26Read full judgment →
- Malik FAQIR HUSSAIN AND 3 Other vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD1976 PLD Lahore 1083 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-19Read full judgment →
- Malik AHMAD DIN AND Another vs Khawaja MAHMUD SADIQ AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Lahore 475 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-14Read full judgment →
- Malik ABDUS SALAM AND 2 Others vs Syed Haji ISHAQ AND 3 Other1976 SCMR 296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal arising from partition proceedings of Shamilat land, which had been ongoing since 1957. The petitioners sought to challenge an order of the High Court that had set aside a revisional order by the Member, Board of Revenue. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the petition was filed 24 days beyond the period of limitation. The petitioners sought condonation of delay, citing the illness of petitioner No. 1, supported by a medical certificate, for the period between July 15, 1975, and September 10, 1975. The Court examined the medical evidence and the circumstances of the case, determining that the nature of the ailment did not render the petitioner completely helpless, especially given that two other co-petitioners shared an equal interest in the litigation. Consequently, the Court held that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. The petition was dismissed as time-barred, affirming the principle that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a sufficient and convincing explanation for the entire period of default.
Questions settled- Does the illness of one petitioner constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay when other co-petitioners have an equal interest in the matter?
- Is a medical certificate alone sufficient to justify the condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
- MAL1K JAN vs Tile STATE1976 P Cr. L 1 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-09Read full judgment →
- Makhdum Syed MUHAMMAD GHAUS SHAH AND ANOTHER vs LAND1976 PLD Revenue 79 · Board of Revenue · 1975-08-25Read full judgment →
- Makhdoom, Members LILARAM VERHOMAL vs BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND AND ANOTHER1976 PLC (C.S.T.] 102 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Makhdoom MUHAMMAD AHSAN vs PATHANA AND 21 Other1976 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a suit filed by the appellant seeking a declaration that he was the full proprietor of certain agricultural land in Multan, and that the rights of the defendants as superior owners (Aala Maliks) stood abolished under Paragraph 22 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 64 of 1959. The appellant claimed that as a Chakdar Kasoor Khar, he qualified as an inferior proprietor (Adna Malik) and thus became the sole owner upon the abolition of superior rights. The trial court, first appellate court, and the High Court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant did not qualify as an Adna Malik. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed these decisions, holding that a Chakdar Kasoor Khar who has no interest in the soil, is not responsible for paying land revenue to the Government, and whose rights are limited to providing irrigation facilities, does not qualify as an Adna Malik. Consequently, the rights of the defendants were not abolished, and the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a Chakdar Kasoor Khar who does not pay land revenue to the Government qualifies as an Adna Malik under Martial Law Regulation No. 64 of 1959?
- Does the mere entry of a party as an owner in historical Jamabandies override a specific settlement order declaring them to hold a lesser tenure?
- Is the payment of land revenue a necessary qualification for a person to be treated as an Adna Malik for the purpose of acquiring full proprietary rights under Paragraph 22 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 of 1959?
- Major RIAZ AHMAD vs HAMID AZIZ SHEIKH AND 2 Other1976 PLD Lahore 871 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-29Read full judgment →
- MAJOR ABDUL QADEER KHAN vs ABDUL HAMID AND Other1976 SCMR 415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the High Court allowing a Letters Patent Appeal, thereby setting aside a Single Judge's order and maintaining the Settlement Authorities' orders regarding the division and transfer of a disputed house between the appellant and respondents. The core legal question concerned whether a father could maintain a claim form for property transfer when his son had previously filed a separate form. The Supreme Court held that the father was not debarred from maintaining his application where the son supported him and relinquished his claim, and that the division of the house into two units based on respective possession was rational and equitable. The Court laid down the principle that where multiple family members occupy distinct portions, filing alternative claims and dividing the property according to possession to achieve substantial justice is legally sustainable.
Questions settled- Can a father file a claim form for property transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 when his son has previously filed a different form for the same property?
- Whether the High Court's interference with a property division order by Settlement Authorities is justified when substantial justice has been done between parties in long-standing possession?
- MAJIDULLAH AND 2 OTHERS vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS1976 PLD Karachi 207 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-11Read full judgment →
- MAJIDULLAH AND 2 OTBERS S vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS1976 PLD Karachi 207 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-11Read full judgment →
- MAJID AZIZ AND Other vs THE STATE1976 PLC 801 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-08-24Read full judgment →
- MAIRAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 199 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-21Read full judgment →
- MAHMUDUR REHMAN vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, ETC.1976 PLC (C. S. T.) 58 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-04-14Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD TEXTILE MILLS WORKERS' UNION vs Tim REGISTRAR OF TRADE1976 PLC 387 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-05Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD TEXTILE MILLS WORKERS UNION vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE1976 PLD Lahore 721 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-05Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AZAM FAROOQI vs Maulana MUHAMMAD SHAFI OKARVI AND 91976 PLD Karachi 381 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-05Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AHMAD AND 7 Other vs P. I. A. CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1976 PLC 561 · Labour Court · 1976-05-30Read full judgment →
- MAHLA also OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1059 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition concerning an affray over disputed land resulting in multiple casualties, including two deaths on the complainant side and one on the accused side. The core legal question involves determining entitlement to bail based on the role attributed to individual accused persons and the prima facie possession of the disputed land as reflected in the revenue record. The Lahore High Court held that petitioners to whom no fatal blows or serious injuries to the deceased were attributed, and whose alleged roles were restricted to causing simple injuries to prosecution witnesses, did not prima facie commit an offence punishable with death or transportation for life, thus entitling them to bail. The key principle laid down is that in cross-cases involving land disputes and rioting, the specific attribution of fatal injuries and the prima facie verification of land possession via revenue records serve as crucial determinants for granting post-arrest bail to the non-attacking or less-involved accused parties.
Questions settled- Are accused persons to whom no fatal injuries are attributed entitled to post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Whether the revenue record can be examined for prima facie determination of land possession during bail proceedings?
- Does participation in an affray resulting in simple injuries only warrant withholding of bail?
- MAHBUB AHMAD vs FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 978 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-26Read full judgment →
- MAHBUB AHMAD vs FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ANOTE1ER1976 PLD Karachi 978 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-26Read full judgment →
- MAHBOOB HUSSAIN SHAH vs PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LTD., PAKISTAN TIMES, RAWALPINDI1976 PLC 10 · Labour Court · 1975-01-12Read full judgment →
- MAHBOOB AHMAD KHAN AND 4 Other vs MESSRS SETHI STRAW BOARD MILLS, RAHWALI1976 PLC 942 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-10-05Read full judgment →
- MACHIA AND 2 Other vs THE STATE1976 PLD Supreme Court 695 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning four connected murders arising out of a blood feud. The appellants challenged the joint trial for four distinct murders as illegal under Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which limits joint trials to three offences of the same kind within a year, and argued that the ocular evidence was unreliable due to deep-rooted enmity. The Supreme Court addressed the legal question of whether Section 239(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permits a joint trial for more than three offences if committed in the course of the same transaction or conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that Section 239(d) operates independently of Section 234 and places no numerical limit on offences tried together when committed in the same transaction. On merits, the Court laid down that interested ocular evidence tainted by hostility requires independent, reliable corroboration, which medical evidence or abscondence alone cannot provide unless directly identifying the accused. Convictions for two murders were upheld based on reliable eye-witness testimony, while the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a joint trial for more than three offences of the same kind permissible under Section 239(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if committed in the course of the same transaction?
- Does Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 restrict or control the application of Section 239(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the number of offences that may be jointly tried?
- Can medical evidence alone serve as sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction based on interested ocular evidence?
- What is the evidentiary value of abscondence as corroborative evidence in cases involving deep-rooted family feuds?
- M. SHAKEEL SAIGOL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (COMPANIES), Etc.1976 PLD Lahore 616 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Writ petitions and tax references were filed before the Lahore High Court challenging orders imposing 'additional tax' under Section 45-A of the Income-tax Act for failure to pay assessed income tax within the stipulated time. The petitioners contended that additional tax computed on unpaid tax is not relatable to income under Section 2(6)(c) or Section 3 of the Income-tax Act, and that the Central Legislature lacked legislative competence under Item 43(c) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution of Pakistan (1962) to enact Section 45-A. The High Court rejected these arguments and dismissed the petitions. The Court held that Section 2(14) expressly defines 'tax' to include any penalty, interest, fee, or other charge. Consequently, 'additional tax' under Section 45-A is in the nature of interest or penalty for delayed payment to enforce recovery, which is fully authorised by the Act's extended definition. Furthermore, its enactment is constitutionally valid under Item 49 of the Third Schedule as a matter incidental and ancillary to the imposition and collection of income tax.
Questions settled- Whether additional tax imposed under Section 45-A of the Income-tax Act constitutes a tax on income or a penalty/interest for delayed recovery?
- Does the statutory definition of 'tax' in Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act extend to cover additional charges like statutory interest under Section 45-A?
- Does the Central Legislature have legislative competence under incidental and ancillary powers to enact provisions enforcing delayed tax recovery?
- M. RASHID KHAN vs S. E. HIGHWAY CIRCLE1976 PLC [C.S.T.] 35(1) · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-11-12Read full judgment →
- M. M. K. A. ZAI vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND TRIBUNAL ANO ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 471 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-22Read full judgment →
- M. HASSAN DIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUNJAB, TRANSPORT1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 31 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-11-17Read full judgment →
- M. C. P. EMPLOYEES' UNION vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, LAHORE AND 21976 PLC 75 · Labour Court · 1975-09-13Read full judgment →
- M. ASLAM MALIK vs ALI AHMED1976 PLC 664 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-06-15Read full judgment →
- M. A. MAJID vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1976 SCMR 311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arose from an order of the Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal regarding his claim for full special pay. The petitioner, a retired government employee, claimed he was entitled to a special pay of Rs. 275 per month based on a departmental memorandum converting a temporary post. The Service Tribunal rejected his claim, finding that he was neither promoted nor appointed to the higher post by a competent authority and had already been paid a reasonable rate of special pay. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in dismissing the petition, held that under Article 212 of the Constitution, the Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants. The Court emphasized that an appeal to the Supreme Court from a Service Tribunal order lies only if the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate. The Tribunal's factual finding regarding the lack of a valid promotion or appointment was within its exclusive jurisdiction and free from illegality.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances does an appeal lie to the Supreme Court of Pakistan from an order of the Service Tribunal?
- Does the Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the terms and conditions of persons in the service of Pakistan?
- Can a claim for promotion or special pay be sustained if the employee was not appointed to the post by a competent authority?
- M. A. IQBAL vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 45 · Civil Services Tribunal · 1974-11-28Read full judgment →
- M. A. HAMEED ETC. vs Syed HAMEED HUSSAIN ADDL. S. & R. C., SARGODHA AND 4 Other1976 SCMR 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a property dispute involving a shop and a chaubara (upper room) in Sargodha. The petitioners, who had purchased the shop via auction, claimed ownership of the chaubara as an integral part of the shop. Conversely, the respondents, successors-in-interest to a previous occupant, claimed entitlement to the chaubara. The core legal question was whether the chaubara was legally transferred to the petitioners along with the shop or whether the respondents held a valid claim to it. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the chaubara was included in their auction purchase. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the principle of finality, noting that the petitioners had failed to challenge an earlier order regarding the chaubara for fifteen years, rendering their current challenge time-barred. The Court affirmed that substantial justice had been served by recognizing the respondents' entitlement based on their possession and status as claimants, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Questions settled- Can a purchaser of a shop in an auction claim an adjacent structure as an integral part of the property without evidence of its inclusion in the auction?
- Does an inordinate delay in challenging a settlement order regarding property transfer render the challenge liable to dismissal?
- Is a claimant in possession of property entitled to its transfer when the original auction purchaser fails to prove the property was part of their purchase?
- M,st. SAIDA NAIM HUSSAIN vs ABDUL GHANI AND 6 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 756 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-15Read full judgment →
- M, INAYAT KHAN vs M. ANWAR AND 2 Other1976 PLD Supreme Court 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved contempt of court proceedings initiated against the respondents under Article 123 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1962, read with the Provisional Constitution Order, 1969, regarding the publication of an interview in a weekly magazine containing scandalous remarks against the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and discussing matters sub judice in a pending appeal. The core legal questions centered on whether criticizing past judicial conduct or a court as constituted under previous constitutional instruments amounts to contempt, whether publishing comments on a legal issue pending before the court constitutes contempt by prejudicing a cause, and whether the Supreme Court under successive constitutions retains the jurisdiction to punish contempt relating to its predecessor courts. The Supreme Court held that the publication constituted gross contempt both by scandalizing the court and by tending to prejudice the determination of a pending case, and affirmed that the superior courts maintain legal continuity across constitutional transitions and possess full competence to punish such contempt. The key legal principles established are that fair comment on final decisions is permissible only after appeal periods expire, comments on pending matters having a tendency to interfere with justice constitute punishable contempt, and the continuous legal identity of the superior judiciary preserves its authority to punish contempt irrespective of changes in constitutional instruments.
Questions settled- Does the publication of an interview criticizing a court's past judgment while an appeal involving the same doctrine is pending constitute contempt of court?
- Whether the Supreme Court of Pakistan as constituted under later constitutional instruments has the jurisdiction to punish contempt relating to predecessor courts.
- Does criticism of a retired judge regarding past judicial conduct amount to contempt of court?
- What are the limits of fair comment on judicial decisions in relation to pending appellate proceedings?
- M UHAM M AD SADIQ (THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES) vs Haji WALI1976 PLD Karachi 961 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-16Read full judgment →
- LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS, LYALLPUR vs ABDUL SATTAR1976 PLC 826 · Labour Court · 1975-01-14Read full judgment →
- LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS vs WORKERS & STAFF UNION1976 PLC 18 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-12-09Read full judgment →
- LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS vs LAL DIN1976 PLC 502 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-05-24Read full judgment →
- LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS LTD. vs THE COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Supreme Court 615 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are two civil appeals by special leave filed to challenge the enhancement of the gross annual rental value of residential quarters of staff and labour in the appellant's factory by taxation authorities. The core legal question concerns the correct statutory basis for determining the annual rental value of such factory quarters under the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the gross annual rental value must be determined on the basis of the actual gross annual rents earned from the quarters rather than hypothetical market rates at which they could be let to outsiders, provided the actual rents are not deliberately kept low. The Court laid down that under Section 5 of the Act and Rule 6(e) of the framed rules, assessment must reflect the actual rent earned or reasonably earned in the preceding financial year for properties of similar description within the rating area, avoiding unreal or unreasonable valuations.
Questions settled- Whether the annual rental value of factory staff and labour quarters under the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 should be assessed on actual rents fetched or on hypothetical market rates?
- How must the gross annual rent be ascertained under Section 5 of the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 read with Rule 6(e) of its rules?
- Can taxation authorities assess property tax on the basis of rents which an owner never received and could not reasonably receive without an allegation of deliberately suppressed rents?
- LUQMAN ALI vs BAQIR & COMPANY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, SARGODHA1976 PLC 843 · Labour Court · 1975-01-15Read full judgment →
- LT: Col,. (R) G. M. NIZAMUDDIN vs IRSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 653 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-11Read full judgment →
- LT.Cot. (REID.) G. M. NIZAMUDDIN vs IRSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 653 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-11Read full judgment →
- LOUNG vs THE STATE Opponent1976 P Cr. L J 204 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction and five-year sentence under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was based on a plea of guilty entered after the charge was amended from Section 302. The appellant contended that he killed his wife under sudden and grave provocation upon finding her with another man. The High Court observed that the trial court failed to record the appellant's plea of guilty in his own words as required by Section 271 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that while there is no absolute bar to accepting a plea of guilt, judicial consensus dictates that in cases involving capital punishment or life imprisonment, courts should not normally base convictions on such pleas. Instead, trial courts must record the evidence and decide the case on its merits. Finding a non-compliance with statutory procedure, the High Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a de novo trial from the stage of recording the plea.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court can legally accept a plea of guilt without reducing the accused's actual words into writing under Section 271 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should a trial court base a conviction solely on a plea of guilt in cases involving capital punishment or life imprisonment?
- What is the proper procedure for a trial court when an accused pleads guilty to a serious criminal charge?
- LIPTON PAKISTAN LTD. vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN1976 PLC 772 · Labour Court · 1975-01-07Read full judgment →
- LIEAH SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs MANZUR HUSSAIN1976 PLC 809 · Labour Court · 1975-03-03Read full judgment →
- LIAQUAT vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1448 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-24Read full judgment →
- LIAQUAT alias LAIQUI vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 155 · Sindh High Court · 1975-08-24Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI vs THE STATE1976 PLD Lahore 68 · Lahore High Court · 1975-09-29Read full judgment →
- LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTORII TARBELA DAM RESETTLEMENT ORGANISATION, WAPDA AND 2 OTHERS vs Haji HAKIM KHAN AND 41 OTHERS1976 PLD Peshawar 50 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-12-23Read full judgment →
- LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR-II TARBELA DAM RESETTLEMENT1976 PLD Peshawar 50 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-12-23Read full judgment →
- LALConvict vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 754 · Labour Court · 1975-07-21Read full judgment →
- LALAN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 52 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of three appellants for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by an Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution alleged that the appellants murdered the deceased due to a motive involving a marriage dispute, relying on ocular evidence from two relatives of the deceased and alleged recoveries of weapons. The core legal question was whether the ocular evidence, provided by interested witnesses, was sufficiently corroborated to sustain a conviction on a capital charge, particularly given significant discrepancies in the recovery evidence and the prosecution's failure to examine independent witnesses. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with improbabilities and material contradictions, particularly regarding the alleged recoveries and the conduct of the investigation. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that where ocular evidence comes from interested witnesses, it requires independent corroboration, and that significant discrepancies in recovery evidence, coupled with the withholding of available independent witnesses, render a conviction unsafe.
Questions settled- Is it safe to base a conviction on the testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to examine available independent witnesses warrant an adverse inference?
- What is the legal effect of material discrepancies in the evidence regarding the recovery of incriminating articles?
- LAL KHAN vs ALI KHAN AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 1165 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-18Read full judgment →
- LAL KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1437 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-25Read full judgment →
- LAL DIN AND Another vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1976 SCMR 445 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioners under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The respondent, who was transferred the evacuee property, had sent statutory notices under Section 30 of the West Pakistan Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The petitioners failed to pay rent, leading to an eviction application. After their defence was struck off for non-compliance with a rent deposit order, the matter was remanded to determine if statutory notices were served. The respondent proved that notices were sent via registered post and that the first petitioner (the husband) received and signed for both notices, including the one addressed to his wife (the second petitioner). Neither petitioner produced evidence or entered the witness box. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the service of notice on the wife through her husband was proper under the circumstances. The Court affirmed that the concurrent findings of the lower courts drew the only correct inference, dismissed the petition, and granted a conditional one-month grace period to vacate.
Questions settled- Whether service of a statutory notice under Section 30 of the West Pakistan Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 on a wife is legally sufficient if received and signed for by her husband on her behalf?
- Can an adverse inference be drawn against a party who fails to enter the witness box or produce evidence to rebut proof of service of a statutory notice?
- Whether a tenant's defence can be struck off for failure to comply with a tentative rent deposit order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.
- LAKHO vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 358 · Sindh High Court · 1974-11-03Read full judgment →
- LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUSC (HOUSING WING) EMPLOYEES' UNION AND ANOTHER vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE1976 PLC 200 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-02-19Read full judgment →
- LABOUR UNION vs UNITED BANK LTD.1976 PLC 540 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-02-04Read full judgment →
- LABOUR UNION vs UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI1976 PLC 635 · Labour Court · 1973-02-11Read full judgment →
- LABOUR UNION vs REHMANIA TEXTILE SILK MILLS No. 1 Ltd.1976 PLC 783 · Labour Court · -Read full judgment →
- LABOUR UNION vs MESSRS M. M. ISPHAHANI LTD. TEA PACKETTING FACTORY1976 PLC 203 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-02-02Read full judgment →
- LABOUR UNION vs MEHRAN SUGAR MILLS LTD.1976 PLC 542 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-02-05Read full judgment →
- LABOUR UNION vs M. M. ISPHAHANI TEA PACKFTTING FACTORY1976 PLC 660 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-02-02Read full judgment →
- KUSLOMAL vs PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE, BOARD OF REVENUE, HYDERABAD1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 132(2) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1975-12-10Read full judgment →
- KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS vs MUHAMMAD YOUSUF1976 PLC 348 · Labour Court · 1975-06-12Read full judgment →
- KOHINOOR CHEMICAL Co. LTD., Karachis vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 548 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-06Read full judgment →
- KOHINOOR CHEMICAL Co. LTD., KARACHI vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 548 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-06Read full judgment →
- KISHWAR KHAN AND Other vs GOVERNMENT OF N. W. F. P. THROUGH CHIEF1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 146 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1976-05-28Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 932 · Labour Court · 1974-06-17Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs KHADEJA HAKEEM AND Ahot11ett1976 PLD Lahore 99 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged orders passed by a Rent Controller, who restored an ejectment application previously dismissed in default without issuing notice to the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller is strictly bound by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding restoration procedures and whether the failure to issue notice violated principles of natural justice. The Court held that the Rent Controller is not a court in the strict sense but acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, and is not bound by the procedural rigors of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the Rent Controller may evolve their own procedure to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Court further held that the principle of natural justice regarding notice only applies when an order divests the opposite party of a vested right. Since the dismissal of an ejectment application in default does not vest a right in the tenant—as a fresh application could be filed—the restoration order without notice was legally valid. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a Rent Controller strictly bound by the procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the restoration of an ejectment application without notice to the respondent violate the principles of natural justice?
- Does the dismissal of an ejectment application in default vest any legal right in the tenant?
- Can a Rent Controller evolve their own procedure for the conduct of proceedings?
- KHUSHI MOHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs NAZAR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1976 P Cr. L J 343 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-11Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 177 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-04Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID ALAM vs THE STATE1976 PLD Lahore 213 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-19Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AHMAD vs The STATE1976 SCMR 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court maintaining his conviction and sentence under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where he was sentenced to six years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question concerned the appropriateness of the sentence in light of a compromise reached between the parties who are collaterals and live in the same village. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that, having regard to the facts and circumstances and the compromise aimed at promoting peace and good relations between the parties, the sentence should be reduced. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court may, in appropriate circumstances involving a compromise between related parties, reduce a criminal sentence to the period already undergone in the interest of fostering harmony.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court can reduce a sentence under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on a compromise between the parties?
- Can a criminal petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal for the purpose of sentence reduction?
- KHURSHED ALI KHAN vs MAHMOODUL HUSSAIN AND 4 01HERS1976 P Cr. L J 653 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-13Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BUX vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 412 · Sindh High Court · 1975-03-20Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BUX vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH THE SECRETARY HOME1976 PLD Karachi 518 · Sindh High Court · 1975-06-21Read full judgment →
- KHUDA Bakhshs vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) AND 3 Other1976 SCMR 26 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the allotment of land under the Horse Breeding Scheme. The petitioner, initially granted tenancy, saw this decision reversed by the Member, Board of Revenue, in favor of respondent 4. The petitioner challenged this reversal in the High Court, arguing that the Board of Revenue lacked the competence to set aside concurrent findings of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner under its revisional jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the petition, interpreting Section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act as conferring broad, untrammeled revisional powers upon the Board of Revenue to pass any order it deems fit, provided the affected party is given an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the Board of Revenue possesses wide, unqualified discretion to revise orders of subordinate revenue officers, subject only to the requirement of prior notice. The Court further observed that matters of administrative discretion within the revenue hierarchy are generally not subject to interference by the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Does the Board of Revenue possess the authority to set aside concurrent findings of subordinate revenue officers under Section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act?
- What are the limitations on the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act?
- Is the exercise of administrative discretion by revenue authorities regarding land allotment subject to interference by the High Court?
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs UNITED BUILDERS & ASSOCIATES, RAWALPINDI CANTT.1976 PLC 281 · Labour Court · 1975-11-29Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BADIN AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 1005 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-27Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF1976 PLD Lahore 275 · Lahore High Court · 1975-09-30Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 3 Other1976 PLD Supreme Court 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of evacuee property consisting of two shops. The appellant, claiming as an informer, challenged the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court. The central legal question was whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to transfer property to an informer via an order dated 9th May 1962, following the promulgation of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1962. The Supreme Court held that the power to transfer evacuee property to informers ceased upon the commencement of the Ordinance on 13th January 1962. Consequently, the order of 9th May 1962 was void ab initio and a nullity. The Court affirmed that a void order confers no rights, and any subsequent actions or documents, such as a Permanent Transfer Deed issued pursuant to such an order, are equally void and legally ineffective. The principle laid down is that where an authority acts in excess of its jurisdiction, the resulting order is non-existent in the eyes of the law, and all subsequent rights built upon that foundation must collapse.
Questions settled- Does the repeal of Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, by Ordinance II of 1962, terminate the authority of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to transfer property to informers?
- Is an order passed by a statutory authority without jurisdiction considered void ab initio and a nullity?
- Can a Permanent Transfer Deed issued pursuant to a void order confer valid title upon the holder?
- Do rights and obligations built upon a void order survive if the foundational order is declared non-existent?
- KHUDA BAKHSH AND Other vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1976 PLD SC 687 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the disposal of composite evacuee property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The central legal question was whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner’s order, which adopted a Settlement Inspector’s report, was legally invalid for failing to apply an independent mind, thereby justifying the High Court's remand order based on the precedent in Ghulam Mohyuddin v. Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had indeed applied his mind, noting that he had personally inspected other parts of the property and reviewed the detailed report. The Court clarified that the precedent in Ghulam Mohyuddin was fact-specific and not of universal application. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's remand order, ruling that administrative officers are not precluded from relying on subordinate reports if they independently verify the merits. The Court further held that consent orders are not subject to challenge in writ jurisdiction and that the failure to file a required CS form precludes a claim for property transfer.
Questions settled- Does an administrative officer's agreement with a subordinate's report necessarily imply a failure to apply an independent mind?
- Is the principle in Ghulam Mohyuddin v. Chief Settlement Commissioner of universal application regarding administrative orders?
- Can a party challenge a consent order in writ jurisdiction?
- Does the failure to file a CS form preclude the transfer of evacuee property?
- MANSHA AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 511 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-26Read full judgment →
- Khawaja MASOOD vs AMEER BAKHSH AND Other1976 SCMR 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the disposal of a house under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The appellant, a local in possession of the house, sought its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, claiming it was 'available' property. The house had previously been transferred to the respondent, Ameer Bakhsh, in 1960, and this transfer was reaffirmed in 1963. The High Court had earlier accepted a compromise between the respondent and another claimant, directing the transfer of the house to them. The appellant, not a party to the writ proceedings, unsuccessfully attempted to intervene and review the High Court's order. The Supreme Court held that the property was not 'available' for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII because it had already been transferred to the respondent prior to the enforcement of the scheme. The Court affirmed that the definition of 'available' houses under the scheme excludes properties already transferred under the Act. Consequently, the appellant's claim was rejected as the house was not open for allotment when the scheme was enforced.
Questions settled- Can a property already transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act be considered 'available' for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Does a person who is not a party to a writ petition have the locus standi to challenge the order passed in those proceedings?
- Does the enforcement of Settlement Scheme No. VIII render properties previously transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act available for re-allotment?