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.
- Khawaja FAZAL KARIM vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Supreme Court 461 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a farm manager, challenged the dismissal of his petition for quashing criminal proceedings initiated against him for storing excess wheat without a license, allegedly in violation of the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Ordinance, 1957. The core legal question was whether a producer of foodgrains is exempt from licensing requirements and regulatory obligations regarding the storage of foodgrains in excess of the defined 'normal quantity'. The Supreme Court held that while clause 3 of the West Pakistan Foodgrains (Licensing Control) Order, 1957, exempts producers from obtaining a license for the sale or storage of their own produce, this exemption does not absolve them from the prohibition in clause 5 against possessing foodgrains exceeding the 'normal quantity' without written permission from the Licensing Authority. Furthermore, producers holding excess stocks are subject to regulatory obligations, including submitting stock statements. The Court affirmed that inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, should not be invoked to bypass ordinary criminal trial procedures, especially when factual disputes regarding possession and ownership exist.
Questions settled- Does the exemption for producers under clause 3 of the West Pakistan Foodgrains (Licensing Control) Order, 1957, permit the possession of foodgrains in excess of the 'normal quantity' without written permission?
- Are producers holding foodgrains in excess of the 'normal quantity' required to submit stock statements under the West Pakistan Foodgrains (Licensing Control) Order, 1957?
- Can the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to quash criminal proceedings involving disputed questions of fact?
- Does the substitution of the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Ordinance, 1957 by the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958 invalidate proceedings initiated under the former?
- Khanvaja AZHAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1976 PLD Lahore 729 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arises from criminal appeals filed by three convicts against their convictions and sentences passed by the trial court in a case involving triple murder and multiple injuries caused by indiscriminate shooting at the complainant's residence. The prosecution asserted that the principal accused, Khawaja Azhar Hussain, accompanied by armed co-accused, gate-crashed the house of his estranged wife's family to avenge her departure and opened fire with a Sten-gun and handguns, killing three persons and injuring four. The core legal questions centered on whether the ocular testimony of natural, interested witnesses was sufficiently corroborated by forensic recoveries and medical evidence, and whether an empty-handed companion accused of instigation could be convicted alongside armed principal offenders.
The High Court held that the ocular evidence of natural witnesses was fully corroborated by firearm recoveries, ballistic matching, and medical evidence regarding the principal accused and an injured co-accused. However, as no instigatory role was mentioned in the FIR or initial police statements against the empty-handed companion, improvements made at trial were doubtful, entitling him to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the High Court confirmed the death sentence of the principal accused, upheld the conviction of the injured co-accused, and acquitted the empty-handed appellant.
Questions settled- Whether the uncorroborated ocular testimony of interested witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a capital case?
- Can an empty-handed accused be convicted of participation in a shooting occurrence based on trial-stage improvements attributing instigation not mentioned in the FIR?
- Is forensic recovery of a weapon and positive ballistic matching sufficient corroboration to uphold the conviction of a principal accused?
- KHAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 320 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-25Read full judgment →
- KHALIL AHMAD Alias KHALIL AND Another vs The STATE1976 SCMR 161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court setting aside the acquittal of the appellants, Khalil and Ashiq, and sentencing them to life imprisonment for the murder of Wazir Ali and two years for causing injuries to his son Maqbul Ahmad under sections 302, 323, and 324 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of ocular testimony, specifically whether the injured eyewitness, Maqbul Ahmad, was present at the scene and whether his testimony was reliable despite alleged discrepancies and the trial court's finding that his injuries were self-inflicted. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the presence of the injured witness was naturally established by timely F.I.R. lodging, corroborative medical evidence, and reliable incriminating weapon recoveries. The key principle laid down is that an injured eyewitness's testimony, supported by prompt lodging of the First Information Report and consistent medical evidence, is entitled to great weight and cannot be discarded on far-fetched or fanciful surmises.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an injured eye-witness can be discarded on the assumption that his injuries were self-suffered?
- Does the prompt lodging of a First Information Report eliminate the possibility of false implication by a young witness?
- Can an appellate court set aside an order of acquittal when the trial court's reasons for disbelieving eye-witnesses are far-fetched and fanciful?
- KHALID NASRULLAH AND OTHERS vs Malik MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR KHAN1976 PLD Revenue 35 · Board of Revenue · 1973-06-18Read full judgment →
- KHALID LATIF vs Sardar AMIR MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1976 P Cr. L J 26 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-01Read full judgment →
- KHAIRPUR TEXTILE MILLS. LTD vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND 4 Other1976 PLD Karachi 164 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-09Read full judgment →
- KHAIRPUR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND 4 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 164 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-09Read full judgment →
- KHAIRPUR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND 4 OTHERS , .1976 PTD 159 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-09Read full judgment →
- KHAIR MUHAMMAD vs KHUDA BAKHSH AND 2 Other1976 SCMR 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside a decree granted in favor of the petitioner regarding a claim of adverse possession over agricultural land. The petitioner asserted title based on long-term occupation, arguing that his possession was hostile and continuous for over twelve years, and that the property was not subject to evacuee property laws. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner had established continuous adverse possession for the statutory period and whether the civil court had jurisdiction to determine the title. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove continuous and uninterrupted adverse possession, as revenue entries for specific years did not create a presumption of continuous possession over the intervening periods. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that mere occupation as a tenant-at-will, even without paying rent, does not constitute an overt act of hostile possession. The Court also noted that the petitioner could not claim the entire area when he only occupied half. The petition was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision.
Questions settled- Does the entry of a person as a tenant-at-will in revenue records, without paying rent, constitute an overt act of hostile possession?
- Can a party who invokes the jurisdiction of a civil court subsequently challenge that court's jurisdiction?
- Does the production of revenue jamabandis for non-consecutive years create a presumption of continuous adverse possession for the intervening period?
- Is a claimant entitled to claim title by adverse possession over an entire tract of land when they are only in possession of a portion of it?
- KHAIR MUHAMMAD Alias KHAIROO vs THE STATE1976 PLD Supreme Court 303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which modified the convictions of the appellant, Khair Muhammad alias Khairoo, and co-accused originally tried by the Sessions Judge, Hazara, for murder and rioting under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the part ascribed to the appellant of giving the fatal injury to the deceased stood fully established by the evidence, particularly given improvements made by eye-witnesses at trial regarding specific roles not mentioned in the initial First Information Report. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the evidence regarding the appellant causing the fatal head injury was fraught with material contradictions and improvements, and he could at most be held responsible for a simple hurt. The appeal was partly accepted, the conviction and sentence were set aside to that extent, and the appellant was ordered to be released. The key legal principle laid down is that improvements made by witnesses at trial regarding specific fatal roles, when materially conflicting with the initial police report and medical evidence, cannot safely form the basis of a murder conviction.
Questions settled- Whether an improvement made by an eye-witness at trial regarding a specific fatal role not mentioned in the initial FIR is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction?
- Can a conviction for murder stand when the ocular testimony materially conflicts with the medical evidence regarding the number and nature of injuries?
- Does an assembly that was lawful at its inception subsequently become an unlawful assembly upon a sudden exhortation to attack?
- KHAIR DIN AND Another vs Mst. ZAINABBIBI AND 2 Other1976 SCMR 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition challenges a Supreme Court order that dismissed a civil petition concerning a property dispute over agricultural land. The petitioners sought to challenge a sale of land by the daughters of the deceased owner, arguing that they were the exclusive owners. The lower courts and the Supreme Court had previously held that the vendee was protected as a bona fide purchaser for value from ostensible owners under the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The petitioners sought review on grounds that the vendee failed to exercise due care in verifying ownership and that the Court erred in its factual observations regarding the total land area available to the vendors. The Supreme Court held that the findings regarding the bona fide nature of the purchase were consistent across all lower courts and supported by revenue records. Furthermore, the Court clarified that its previous decision rested on the status of the vendors as ostensible owners, rendering the dispute over the total land area irrelevant to the final outcome. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a finding of fact regarding a bona fide purchaser, consistent across lower courts, warrant interference in a review petition?
- Is a review petition maintainable when the disputed observation was not the primary basis for the original decision?
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL1976 PLC [C.S.T.] 5(1) · Punjab Appellate Tribunal · 1974-08-06Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN AND Another vs DISTRICT COUNCIL, LYALLPUR AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Lahore 1044 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns writ petitions filed by transporters challenging a notification issued by the District Council, Lyallpur, which cancelled a previous amendment to a toll tax notification. The core legal question was whether the cancellation of an amending notification, which had become part and parcel of the original notification, automatically revived the original tax provision, and whether the petitioners were precluded from seeking relief due to the availability of alternate remedies under the Basic Democracies Order, 1959. The Court held that the amendment, once incorporated into the main notification, became an integral part thereof. Consequently, the repeal or cancellation of the amending notification did not revive the original provision, as no contrary intention was expressed. Furthermore, the Court determined that the statutory remedies under the Basic Democracies Order were not adequate or efficacious, as they did not guarantee a right to be heard. The Court laid down the principle that the repeal of an amending enactment does not affect the continuance of the amendment unless expressly stated otherwise.
Questions settled- Does the repeal of an amending notification automatically revive the original provision of the main notification?
- Is the right of representation under Article 67 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, an adequate alternate remedy to bar a writ petition?
- Does the repeal of an amending statute affect the validity of the amendment already incorporated into the main statute?
- Kh. RASHID AHMAD vs NAZIR AND ANOTHER1976 PLC 896 · Labour Court · 1975-01-01Read full judgment →
- KH. FATEH MOHAMMAD ANWARI vs KH. MUMTAZ AHMAD AND Another1976 SCMR 71 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of the transfer and divisibility of a residential bungalow in Lahore between two rival claimants in possession of different portions. Initially held indivisible, the Chief Settlement Commissioner on revision and subsequently after remand held the property to be divisible into two independent residential units under the relevant settlement laws, ordering its transfer to both contestants. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent writ challenge. In seeking leave to appeal, the petitioner contended that the bungalow was structurally indivisible due to shared amenities and shared access, relying on prior case law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the determination of divisibility falls within the special jurisdiction of the settlement authorities, and the High Court will not interfere in writ jurisdiction unless the impugned order is arbitrary, fanciful, or mala fide. The Court affirmed that structural inconvenience or privacy concerns do not bar divisibility where competent authorities have concurrently found the property divisible.
Questions settled- Whether the determination of divisibility of a property falls within the special jurisdiction of settlement authorities?
- Can the High Court interfere in its writ jurisdiction with a finding of divisibility made by settlement authorities without proof of arbitrariness or mala fides?
- Does structural inconvenience or shared access render a residential property indivisible under settlement laws?
- Kh. BASHIR AHMAD AND OTHERS vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1976 SCMR 313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review application filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an earlier order dismissing a civil petition concerning the disputed status of a chaubara situated in Jhang Bazar, Lyallpur. The core legal question involved whether the chaubara formed part of a residential portion or a commercial shop, and the legal effect of an unattested mutation on a registered sale deed. The Court held that the Settlement Commissioner's finding of fact—that the chaubara was not part of the residential portion—was sustainable, and reaffirmed that a registered sale deed does not become void merely because the corresponding mutation has not been attested. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the evidentiary value of a registered sale deed remains intact despite the non-attestation of a mutation, and concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities regarding property classification will not be lightly disturbed in review.
Questions settled- Does a registered sale deed become void merely because the mutation in respect of the sale is not attested?
- Can a finding of fact by a Settlement Commissioner regarding the nature of a property be successfully challenged without establishing error or misreading?
- Whether an allottee of a residential portion is entitled to claim an adjacent chaubara when it is found not to be a part of the residential portion?
- Kazi ABDUL MAJID vs PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY, EXCISE &1976 PLD Karachi 600 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, proprietor of a cinema, filed a constitutional petition before the High Court of Sindh challenging the vires of the West Pakistan Entertainment Duty (Sind Amendment) Ordinance, 1974. The petitioner raised two principal grounds: first, that no emergency circumstances existed under Article 128 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to justify the Governor's promulgation of the Ordinance; and second, that under Article 279 of the Constitution, existing taxes could only be varied or abolished strictly by an Act of the appropriate Legislature, thereby excluding an Ordinance. The High Court rejected both arguments. The court held that under Article 128, the Governor is the sole judge of the existence of circumstances requiring immediate legislative action. Furthermore, by virtue of Article 260(2) of the Constitution, the phrase 'Act of Provincial Assembly' or 'Act of Parliament' includes an Ordinance promulgated by a Governor or the President. Consequently, an Ordinance possesses the full force and effect of an Act of the Legislature and can validly alter existing tax levies under Article 279. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Is the Governor the sole judge of the existence of circumstances justifying the promulgation of an Ordinance under Article 128 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the term 'Act of the appropriate Legislature' in Article 279 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include an Ordinance promulgated by the Governor or President?
- Can existing taxes and fees be varied or abolished by an Ordinance under Article 279 read with Article 260 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- KAZI & KAZI LTD. vs FIFTH SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 79 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-07Read full judgment →
- KAZI & KAZI LTD vs FIFTH SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND 3 Other1976 PLD Karachi 79 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-07Read full judgment →
- KARIMUDDIN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 483 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-02Read full judgment →
- KARIM BAKHSH vs Seth MOOLCHAND AND 15 Other1976 SCMR 517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioner concerning a property dispute in Multan City. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner acquired a valid title to the property through a sale-deed executed by a transferee from a non-Muslim evacuee owner, when the initial sale had not been confirmed by the Custodian within the prescribed period of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's application for confirmation of the sale, filed after a lapse of more than ten years, was rightly dismissed as barred by limitation under the relevant rules, leaving the petitioner's title inchoate and ineffective. The key principle laid down is that a transfer of evacuee property requiring confirmation by the Custodian remains inchoate and cannot form the basis of a valid legal title if the application for confirmation is not filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
Questions settled- Whether an application for confirmation of a sale of evacuee property is barred by limitation if filed beyond the period prescribed by the Administration of Evacuee Property Rules?
- Can an unconfirmed sale of evacuee property form the foundation of a valid legal title for the transferee?
- Does a transferee of evacuee property acquire valid title without obtaining mandatory confirmation from the Custodian under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957?
- KAREEM BAKHSH vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 911 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-29Read full judgment →
- KARAMATULLAH KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P.1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 8 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1974-10-03Read full judgment →
- KARAMAT ALI SHAH Syed HAIDER ALI SHAH vs THE STATE KARAMAT ALI SHAH1976 SCMR 138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal: one by the convict, Karamat Ali Shah, challenging his conviction for murder, and the other by the complainant, Syed Haider Ali Shah, seeking the enhancement of the convict's sentence from life imprisonment to death. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly convicted the petitioner under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and whether the reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment was justified based on the plea of grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the ocular evidence was corroborated by the recovery of the crime weapon and the matching of ballistic evidence. Regarding the sentence, the Court held that the petitioner's plea of 'Ghairat' (honor) did not constitute grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code, as the factual basis for the provocation was unproven. However, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's discretion in reducing the sentence, finding the reasoning not entirely unreasonable. Both petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the plea of 'Ghairat' (honor) automatically constitute grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an appellate court decline to enhance a sentence if the trial court's reasoning for leniency is not considered entirely unreasonable?
- Is the recovery of a crime weapon and matching ballistic evidence sufficient to corroborate ocular testimony in a murder case?
- KARAM RASOOL vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L I 1144 · Labour Court · 1975-02-17Read full judgment →
- KARACHI STEVEDORING Co. LTD. vs Vth SIND LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS1976 PLC 638 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-07Read full judgment →
- KARACHI STEVEDORING Co. Ltd vs Vim SIND LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 1091 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-07Read full judgment →
- KARACHI STEVEDORING CO. .LTD. vs VTH SIND LABOUR COURT AND Other1976 PLD Karachi 1091 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-07Read full judgment →
- KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs ALI HUSSAIN1976 PLD Karachi 995 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-01Read full judgment →
- KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Defendant vs ALI HUSSAIN1976 PLD Karachi 995 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-01Read full judgment →
- KARACHI FLOUR MILLERS' UNION AND 3 OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF SIND1976 PLD Karachi 623 · Sindh High Court · 1975-07-04Read full judgment →
- KARACHI FLOUR MILLERS' UNION AND 3 Other vs PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, GOVERNMENT OF SIND, KARACHI AND 4 Other1976 PLD Karachi 623 · Sindh High Court · 1975-07-04Read full judgment →
- KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs PRESIDING OFFICER, VTH SIND LABOUR1976 PLC 383 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-09Read full judgment →
- KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs PRESIDING OFFICER, VTH SIND LABOUR1976 PLD Karachi 514 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-09Read full judgment →
- KANPUR DYEING & PRINTING Co. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U. P.1976 PTD 36 · Allahabad High Court · 1969-08-18Read full judgment →
- KAIOMARZ R. FEROZEPURWALA AND OTHERS vs THE ADMINISTRATOR, DOW1976 PLD Karachi 1039 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-06Read full judgment →
- KAIOMARZ R. FEROZEPURWALA AND Other vs THE ADMINISTRATOR, DOW1976 PLD Karachi 1039 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-06Read full judgment →
- K. S. B. PUMPS Co. LTD., LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL1976 PLC 897 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-13Read full judgment →
- K. M. ASAF vs ABDULLAH MALIK AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Lahore 158 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves writ petitions challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by Punjab Labour Courts upon complaints filed under section 53 read with section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, concerning alleged victimization and discrimination related to trade union activities and general elections. The core legal questions relate to whether unfair labor practices under section 15 encompass discrimination based on participation in trade union general elections, whether remedies under section 25-A and section 53 are mutually exclusive, and whether territorial jurisdiction lies where an order is signed or where it is implemented under section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that trade union general elections constitute trade union activities, that remedies under section 25-A and section 53 are simultaneous and concurrent, and that preliminary findings of a prima facie case by a special tribunal based on evidence do not warrant constitutional interference at an interlocutory stage. The key principles established are that participation in union elections falls within union activities, statutory remedies for grievance redressal and penal prosecution are concurrent, and High Courts will not prematurely interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 with interlocutory orders of tribunals possessing proper prima facie jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does participation in the general elections of a trade union constitute a trade union activity under section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Are the remedies provided under section 25-A and section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 mutually exclusive or can they be availed of simultaneously?
- Does a Labour Court have territorial jurisdiction under section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where an impugned discriminatory order is implemented, even if it was signed elsewhere?
- Can a High Court interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 with a preliminary order of a Labour Court issuing process when a prima facie case has been established on the record?
- K. G. OLD, PRINCIPAL, CHRISTIAN TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTRE, GUJRANWALA1976 PLC 675 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses several writ petitions concerning whether educational institutions, such as the Christian Technical Training Centre and the University of the Punjab, constitute an 'industry' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question is whether the statutory definition of 'industry' encompasses educational activities, particularly when such institutions operate workshops or printing presses. The Court held that educational institutions are not 'industries' within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It reasoned that the terms 'business', 'trade', and 'manufacture' in the definition must be interpreted in their popular and conventional sense, focusing on enterprises organized for the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth or material services. Ancillary activities, such as workshops or printing presses run for educational purposes, do not alter the primary character of an educational institution. The key principle laid down is that the character of an establishment is determined by its primary purpose; activities incidental or ancillary to education do not bring an educational institution within the ambit of industrial law.
Questions settled- Does an educational institution fall within the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can ancillary commercial activities, such as workshops or printing presses, transform an educational institution into an 'industry'?
- How should the terms 'business', 'trade', and 'manufacture' be interpreted within the context of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does the registration of a trade union by employees of an educational institution constitute a valid exercise of power under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- K. G. OLD, PRINCIPAL, CHRISTIAN TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTRE, GUJRANWALA1976 PLD Lahore 1097 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of multiple writ petitions involving the question of whether educational institutions and their ancillary units fall within the definition of "industry" under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The core legal question examined by the court was whether education and related institutional activities constitute an industry, making labour and industrial laws applicable to educational bodies such as technical training centres, universities, and education boards. The Lahore High Court held that the expressions used in the definition of "industry" must be interpreted in their popular and conventional sense rather than their widest literal dictionary meaning, applying only to enterprises organized and systematic, depending on cooperation between labour and capital for the production, distribution, or consumption of wealth, or the provision of material services. The court ruled that educational institutions and their incidental operations, such as training workshops or printing presses established to fulfill educational objectives, do not constitute an industry. Consequently, the impugned orders treating educational bodies as industries were declared to be without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether educational institutions fall within the definition of "industry" under the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- Does the operation of a printing press or training workshop by a university or educational institution change its character into a commercial industry?
- Are the terms used in the statutory definition of industry to be interpreted in their plain dictionary meaning or their popular and conventional meaning?
- K. D. C. BOARDS LTD vs MUHAMMAD SAD1Q1976 PLC 915 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-09-28Read full judgment →
- JUMMA AND OTHERS vs THE S PATE1976 P Cr. L J 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-25Read full judgment →
- JUMMA AND Another vs Mst. HUSSAIN BIBI AND Another1976 SCMR 130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee property in Rawalpindi. The petitioner claimed rights to the property through an auction sale, while the respondent sought transfer based on her possession under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The core legal question was whether the auction sale was valid and whether the property was legally available for disposal at the time of the auction. The Supreme Court held that the auction was void ab initio because it was conducted while a revision petition regarding the property was still pending before the Settlement Commissioner. The Court further determined that the auction did not become effective until its confirmation by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, which occurred after the respondent had already applied for the property's transfer. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the respondent possessed a superior right to the property. The key principle laid down is that an auction of evacuee property held during the pendency of a revision petition is without lawful authority and confers no rights upon the auction purchaser.
Questions settled- Is an auction of evacuee property valid if conducted while a revision petition regarding the property is pending?
- Does an auction purchaser acquire rights in evacuee property before the auction is confirmed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner?
- Can a party in possession claim transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII if the auction sale of that property was not yet confirmed?
- MANSHA KHAN vs Syed MUHAMMAD SADIQ SHAH AND OTHER1976 SCMR 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The dispute in this matter relates to the transfer of an evacuee shop in Rawalpindi. The petitioner, a local, had been in possession of the shop since 1949 under an allotment order. The shop was later put to auction in 1960 and knocked down in favor of respondent No. 1, who failed to clear the balance of the auction price after utilizing a bogus compensation book. Consequently, the auction was cancelled by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, and under the newly applicable Scheme No. VIII, the shop was ordered to be transferred to the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 challenged the cancellation and transfer through belated departmental appeals and revisions, which were dismissed, but subsequently succeeded in a constitutional writ petition before the High Court, which set aside the settlement authorities' orders. The Supreme Court considered the petition for special leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that questions of fact regarding notice and cancellation could not be re-examined by this forum, particularly when the High Court remanded the matter back to the settlement authorities for decision in accordance with law, and that the issuance of a P.T.D. remained subject to the final outcome of the pending litigation. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the issuance of a P.T.D. bars the settlement authorities from dealing with a property when the cancellation of a prior auction is sub judice?
- Can questions of fact regarding the service of notice and ex parte cancellation be reopened before the Supreme Court under special leave to appeal?
- Whether an auction purchaser who submits a bogus compensation book is entitled to retain rights in an evacuee property?
- JUMMA AND 3 OTHERS Convict vs The STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-21Read full judgment →
- JIOMAL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 364 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-08Read full judgment →
- JINNA H POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL CENTRE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION vs1976 PLC 410 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-11-01Read full judgment →
- JHANDA KHAN vs NAWAB DIN AND 2 Other1976 SCMR 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the death of the appellant, Jhanda Khan, during the pendency of litigation, leading to the abatement of the appeal. The legal representatives sought to set aside the abatement, claiming ignorance of the litigation, a contention the Court rejected as implausible given the circumstances and the failure to controvert evidence regarding the deceased's residence with his son. On the merits, the dispute concerned the appellant's claim to mortgagee rights in land. The Court found that the appellant had failed to file the mandatory declaration (Form M.C.E.I) required by the Settlement Scheme to determine mortgage money entitlement. Consequently, the appellant forfeited his rights. The Court held that the explanation for the delay in bringing legal representatives on record was insufficient and that the appellant had failed to follow the prescribed procedural requirements for claiming mortgagee rights. The appeal was dismissed both on the ground of abatement and on its merits, with the Court noting that claims regarding excess land units fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities.
Questions settled- Can an order of abatement be set aside where the legal representatives fail to provide a credible explanation for the delay in their application?
- Is a claimant entitled to mortgagee rights in land if they fail to file the prescribed declaration form required by the Settlement Scheme?
- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims regarding excess land units that fall within the purview of Settlement Authorities?
- JAVID MAHMOOD vs PAKISTAN NATIONAL CENTRE AND ANOTHER1976 PLC 377 · Labour Court · 1975-07-17Read full judgment →
- JAVAID IQBAL vs Rana MUZAFFAR KHAN1976 SCMR 229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent landlord under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The Rent Controller directed the petitioner tenant under Section 13(6) to deposit future monthly rent by the 15th day of each succeeding month. Upon the tenant's repeated delayed deposits, the Rent Controller struck off his defence and ordered ejectment. This decision was affirmed by the Additional District Judge and upheld in second appeal by the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the tenant's default was wilful and attributable to his counsel's failure to inform him of the order, and whether the tenant was denied a fair opportunity to show cause against striking off his defence.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the order was passed in the presence of the tenant's counsel and the tenant himself was negligent in failing to keep informed of the proceedings and prosecute his case diligently. The Court held that reliance on wrong advice of counsel did not apply where no such advice was given, and that Section 13(6) does not mandate a formal trial or taking of evidence prior to striking off defence, provided a fair opportunity to explain the default is afforded.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's failure to keep informed of court proceedings constitute negligence amounting to default under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can a tenant escape liability for default in depositing monthly rent by pleading lack of knowledge of an order passed in the presence of his counsel?
- Is a Rent Controller required to allow a tenant to adduce formal evidence before striking off his defence under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- JAVAID alias JAVAID IQBAL vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 227 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-10Read full judgment →
- JARRAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTER vs The STATE1976 SCMR 191 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a High Court judgment that reversed an acquittal and convicted the appellants for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appellants were initially acquitted by the trial court for the murder of Zawar Hussain, but the High Court, upon appeal by the State, convicted them under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to eight years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court correctly interfered with the trial court's acquittal and whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Exception I to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding the ocular evidence of five witnesses, including two injured witnesses, reliable and sufficient to prove the appellants' guilt. The Court affirmed that the assault occurred as a direct sequel to a prior altercation between the parties' elders, justifying the application of Exception I to Section 300, thereby reducing the culpability to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in interfering with an order of acquittal when ocular evidence is corroborated by injuries sustained by witnesses?
- Does a prior altercation between the elders of the parties constitute sufficient grounds to invoke Exception I to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an appellate court convict an accused under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the evidence supports a finding of grave and sudden provocation?
- JARO Amu 2 OTHERS vs Na STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1391 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-03Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD vs M. YOUNUS SIDDIQUI1976 PLC 312 · Labour Court · 1974-05-22Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD alias JANU vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 278 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-21Read full judgment →
- JAMSHED ALI vs PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF HOME, ISLAMABAD1976 SCMR 255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, initially appointed as a foot constable and later temporarily as an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Security), was reverted to the lower post of Head Security Guard upon failing to produce proof of possessing the minimum required educational qualification of passing the Middle Examination. His departmental representation and subsequent appeal to the Service Tribunal were dismissed. The petitioner then filed a petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the reversion order was illegal for lack of a show-cause notice and violated the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules, 1973). The Supreme Court held that under Section 12 of the Civil Servants Ordinance 1973 and the Civil Servants Act 1973, a civil servant appointed to a higher post on an ad hoc, temporary, or officiating basis is liable to reversion without notice. The Court further noted that new contentions not raised before the Service Tribunal could not be entertained, and dismissed the petition as no substantial question of law of public importance was involved.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant appointed to a higher post on a temporary basis is entitled to a show-cause notice prior to reversion?
- Can a contention not raised before the Service Tribunal be urged for the first time in a petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Does failing the Matric Examination legally imply passing the Middle Examination for the purpose of meeting minimum educational qualifications?
- JAMROZE KHAN AND Another vs PEER BAKHSH KHAN, ADVOCATE AND Another1976 SCMR 480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of a pre-emption suit instituted by respondent No. 1 regarding an oral sale of land in Peshawar. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of respondent No. 1, holding that he was entitled to pre-emption upon payment of the market value, and rejected the petitioners' claim for the cost of a building constructed on the land during the litigation, finding it was built in bad faith in violation of an injunction and after receiving notice. The lower appellate court affirmed this. On further appeal, a Single Judge modified the decree to include the cost of construction, but a Letters Patent Bench restored the trial court's judgment, holding that the Single Judge erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the Letters Patent Bench rightly decided the matter as the concurrent findings were based on solid evidence and not vitiated by any misreading.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emptor is liable to pay for the cost of construction raised by the vendee in bad faith and in violation of a court injunction?
- Can a learned Single Judge interfere with concurrent findings of fact under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without establishing a misreading of evidence?
- JAMALUDDIN vs SHAHMURAD AND 9 Other1976 PLD Karachi 174 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-30Read full judgment →
- JAMAL UDDIN vs SHAHMURAD AND 9 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 174 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-30Read full judgment →
- JAMAL DIN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 513 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1974-10-02Read full judgment →
- JALIL AHMAD KHAN NIAZI vs DR. QAMARUDDIN1976 PLD Lahore 80 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-11Read full judgment →
- JAGAN AND ANOTHER vs Tea STATE1976 P Cr. L J 760 · Sindh High Court · 1974-12-10Read full judgment →
- JAFFAR AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STA1 E1976 P Cr. L J 337 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-18Read full judgment →
- J S. ZAHID ALI vs Mst. MUBARAK BANO1976 PLD Karachi 68 · Sindh High Court · 1975-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a reference to a Division Bench concerning whether the High Court possesses the authority to transfer a family suit from one Family Court to another. The applicant sought such a transfer under Section 24 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing convenience. The Court examined the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, which excludes the application of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding such transfers. The Court held that while it indeed possesses the power to transfer family suits, this authority is derived from its constitutional supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts, not from the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Crucially, the Court established that this supervisory power is intended solely to maintain the purity of the administration of justice—such as correcting jurisdictional defects, bias, or dereliction of duty—and cannot be invoked merely for the convenience of litigants. Consequently, the power is not a remedy available to parties ex debito justitia but a mechanism to ensure subordinate courts function correctly.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the power to transfer a family suit from one Family Court to another?
- Can a party invoke Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to transfer a family suit?
- Is the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under the Constitution intended to provide relief to parties or to ensure the purity of the administration of justice?
- Does the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 exclude the application of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the transfer of suits?
- J MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN AND Other vs PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN AND Other1976 PLD Quetta 59 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, all civil servants, filed various constitutional petitions challenging departmental orders regarding their dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement, transfer, and seniority. The Provincial Government raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of these petitions, citing the establishment of the Services Tribunal under the Baluchistan Services Tribunal Act, 1974, and the subsequent extension of Article 212(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to said Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the High Court retained jurisdiction over these service matters or if such jurisdiction was exclusively vested in the Services Tribunal, causing the pending petitions to abate. The Court held that the cumulative effect of the Baluchistan Services Tribunal Act, 1974, and Article 212 of the Constitution is to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Services Tribunal for all matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, including disciplinary actions. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitions had abated under Section 6 of the Act and dismissed them, affirming that the Tribunal possesses the authority to adjudicate on issues of mala fides and the vires of laws.
Questions settled- Does Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 require that a Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over every single matter relating to the terms and conditions of service?
- Does the Services Tribunal have the jurisdiction to examine whether a law is void due to conflict with Fundamental Rights or if a departmental order is mala fide?
- What is the effect of the Provincial Services Tribunal (Extension of the Provisions of the Constitution) (Amendment) Act, 1976, on pending proceedings in the High Court regarding service matters?
- Does the subsequent disability of a member of a Service Tribunal render the Tribunal itself non-existent?
- J Malik GHULAM AHMAD vs Haji MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND Other1976 PLD SC 271 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court judgment that had quashed a police investigation into allegations of fraud and forgery concerning evacuee property. The respondent had successfully petitioned the High Court to stop the investigation, arguing that the Special Police Establishment lacked jurisdiction and that the allegations were mala fide. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court possessed the authority to interfere with an ongoing police investigation into a cognizable offense. The Court held that the High Court acted without jurisdiction in quashing the investigation. Relying on established precedents, the Court reaffirmed that the functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping. It emphasized that the police have a statutory right to investigate cognizable crimes without judicial interference, and the judiciary cannot utilize its inherent powers to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, recalled the High Court's writ, and directed the relevant investigative agency to proceed with the case according to law.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the power to quash an ongoing police investigation into a cognizable offense?
- Can the judiciary interfere with the statutory duty of the police to investigate cognizable crimes?
- Is the registration of a case by the police subject to judicial interference at the investigation stage?
- IZZAT BAKHSH vs NAZIR AHMAD AND 13 Other1976 SCMR 508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for possession of agricultural land through pre-emption, which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff could invoke Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908 to extend the limitation period by alleging fraudulent concealment of the sale transaction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the sale was fraudulently concealed. The ratio established that for Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908 to apply, there must be evidence of a deliberate contrivance by the opposite party to suppress the transaction or cause of action. Mere inaction, negligence, or the plaintiff's own ignorance does not constitute fraud. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the particulars of the alleged fraud must be fully described and established by cogent evidence. The plaintiff's own admissions and witness testimonies confirmed he had knowledge of the sale, precluding the application of the extended limitation period.
Questions settled- Does mere ignorance of a sale transaction by a plaintiff constitute fraud for the purposes of extending the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- What is the standard of proof required to establish fraudulent concealment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a plaintiff invoke Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908 if they have admitted to having knowledge of the transaction within the prescribed limitation period?
- ISMAIL vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1446 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-23Read full judgment →
- ISMAIL ETC HURMAT ETC. vs THE STATE The STATE1976 SCMR 135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two leave to appeal petitions filed by five convicts challenging their convictions for offences involving rioting, murder, and causing hurt, arising from a violent dispute over the possession of a tree. The core legal questions addressed by the Supreme Court were whether the ocular evidence, provided by close relatives of the deceased, was reliable, and whether the inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.) rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the ocular evidence was credible as the parties were related and lacked prior enmity, eliminating the probability of false implication. Furthermore, the Court held that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. was sufficiently explained by the natural necessity of prioritizing the medical treatment of the seriously injured victim before approaching the police. The Court reaffirmed the principle that it will not undertake a re-appraisal of evidence in the absence of a grave error committed by the lower courts, particularly when the trial court has carefully sifted the evidence and properly applied the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Does the fact that eye-witnesses are close relatives of the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
- Can a delay in lodging the First Information Report be excused if the delay is attributed to prioritizing the medical treatment of the victim?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court undertake a re-appraisal of prosecution evidence in a criminal appeal?
- ISMAIL AND ANOTHER vs BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 41976 PLD Karachi 872 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-06Read full judgment →
- ISMAIL AND Another vs BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 41976 PLD Karachi 872 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-06Read full judgment →
- ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN vs Mian MAHMOOD ALI KASURI AND Another1976 SCMR 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves contempt of court proceedings initiated by the Attorney-General against two members of the National Assembly under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, following derogatory remarks made regarding a Supreme Court decision during assembly debates on recognizing the State of Bangla Desh. Respondent No. 1 alleged the Supreme Court was summoned to give a particular opinion, while Respondent No. 2 remarked that the decision could be thrown away like toilet paper. Both respondents initially claimed constitutional immunity and privileges under Articles 66, 68, and 69 of the Constitution, and argued that the remarks were expunged from the assembly proceedings. Subsequently, both respondents tendered unconditional written apologies expressing high esteem for the Court. The Supreme Court accepted the apologies, noting that the respondents had purged themselves of contempt, and discharged the notices without deciding the complex questions of parliamentary privilege raised, leaving those issues for future determination.
Questions settled- Whether members of the National Assembly enjoy absolute immunity under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 from contempt proceedings for remarks made on the floor of the House?
- Can a court take cognizance of remarks made during parliamentary proceedings if those remarks have been expunged from the record?
- Does an unconditional apology tendered by a contemnor purge the contempt of court under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR AND KASHMIR AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD_Referring Authority vs ABDUL WALI KHAN, M. N. A., FORMER PRESIDENT OF DEFUNCT NATIONAL AWAMI PARTY1976 PLD Supreme Court 57 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Reference under the Political Parties Act, 1962, concerned the dissolution of the National Awami Party (NAP) by the Federal Government, which declared the party was operating in a manner prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the NAP’s activities, including preaching separate nationalities and advocating secession, justified its dissolution. The Supreme Court held that the NAP was indeed operating in a manner prejudicial to Pakistan's sovereignty and integrity, thereby upholding the dissolution. The Court established that the judiciary possesses original jurisdiction to judicially determine the validity of such executive declarations, rejecting the argument that its role was limited to mere judicial review. Furthermore, the Court laid down that the 'two-nation theory' remains the fundamental ideology of Pakistan, and that preaching separate nationalities on ethnic or linguistic lines is inherently prejudicial to national integrity. The Court also clarified that while strict rules of evidence apply, they may be relaxed in such proceedings to ensure the effective administration of justice, particularly regarding foreign-sourced intelligence reports.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to decide whether a political party is operating in a manner prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of Pakistan?
- Can a political party be dissolved by the Federal Government without a final decision from the Supreme Court?
- Is the preaching of separate nationalities within Pakistan prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of the state?
- Are past acts of a political party relevant in determining its present conduct under the Political Parties Act?
- ISLAMABAD OMNI BUS SERVICE vs MUHAMMAD RISALAT1976 PLC 347 · Labour Court · 1975-11-12Read full judgment →
- ISHAQUE HUSSAIN AND 6 Other vs SHAHZAD HASSAN PERVAIZ AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Lahore 34 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-13Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 25 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-26Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD AHMAD vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 928 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-17Read full judgment →
- IRRIGATION RESEARCH EMPLOYEES' UNION vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE1976 PLC 480 · Labour Court · 1972-05-31Read full judgment →
- IQBAL UMER vs MUHAMMAD AZIZULLAH QURESHI AND 2 Other.1976 PLD Karachi 560 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-30Read full judgment →
- IQBAL UMER vs MUHAMMAD AZIZULLAH QURESHI AND 2 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 560 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-30Read full judgment →
- IQBAL HUSSAIN vs SIRAJ DIN1976 P Cr. L 1 1447 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-06Read full judgment →
- IQBAL EMBROIDERY MILLS vs ASHIQ ALI1976 PLC 894 · Labour Court · 1975-01-23Read full judgment →
- INTEZAR HUSSAIN AND 26 Other vs PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH DEPUTY1976 PLC [C.S.T.] 110 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1974-10-29Read full judgment →
- INTERTRADE LTD., KARACHI vs TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 496 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by the plaintiff seeking to file an arbitration agreement in court and appoint an arbitrator regarding disputes arising from an export contract containing an arbitration clause. The core legal questions involved whether the court was bound to refer the dispute to the arbitrator designated under the contract (an officer of the Government of Pakistan nominated by the first defendant) or could appoint an independent arbitrator due to the complexity of legal issues and the large financial sum involved. The court held that where an arbitration agreement designates a party or a person to appoint an arbitrator, such a nomination is valid under Section 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the court must enforce the parties' agreement rather than substitute an arbitrator of its own choice. The court ordered the arbitration agreement to be filed and directed the defendant to nominate an arbitrator in accordance with the contract terms, laying down the principle that the sanctity of a domestic arbitration forum chosen by parties must be upheld unless specific statutory grounds for substitution are established.
Questions settled- Whether an arbitration agreement that designates a person or party to nominate an arbitrator in the future satisfies the requirement of an arbitrator appointed by the parties under Section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Can a court substitute an arbitrator agreed upon by the parties with an independent court-appointed arbitrator merely because the dispute involves complex questions of law or a large sum of money?
- What are the mandatory duties of a court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, once it is established that a valid arbitration agreement exists and differences have arisen between the parties?
- INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS vs BRANDER & CRUICKSHANK1976 PTD 396 · House of LordsRead full judgment →
- INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER vs BROWN1976 PTD 433 · Chancery Division · 1970-10-01Read full judgment →
- INDIA ARMY AND POLICE EQUIPMENT FACTORY vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U. P1976 PTD 41 · Allahabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 676 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-29Read full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH vs MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND 2 Other1976 PLD Lahore 641 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged a Magistrate's order granting the superdari (custody) of a stolen tractor to the complainant, Muhammad Tufail, after a previous interim order had granted custody to the petitioner, Inayat Ullah. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate became functus officio under Section 369, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, upon passing the initial order, thereby lacking the authority to subsequently vary it. The Court held that the initial order was explicitly temporary, contingent upon a Forensic Science Laboratory report regarding the validity of a sale receipt. Because the petitioner accepted this interim condition and the report subsequently proved the receipt was forged, the Magistrate retained jurisdiction to pass further orders. The Court affirmed that an interim order subject to a future event does not constitute a final judgment under Section 369, Cr.P.C. The key principle laid down is that a Magistrate is not barred from varying an order that is expressly interlocutory or conditional, and that stolen property should generally be entrusted to the rightful owner rather than a purchaser from a thief pending trial.
Questions settled- Does a Magistrate become functus officio under Section 369, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, after passing an interim order for the custody of property?
- Can a Magistrate vary an order for superdari that was explicitly made subject to the outcome of a forensic report?
- Should stolen property be entrusted to a bona fide purchaser or the original owner pending the trial of the case?
- INAYAT ALL vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND 2 OTHERS1976 P Cr. L J 774 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-26Read full judgment →
- INAM RUBBANI AND Another vs Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM AHD 11 Other1976 SCMR 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which accepted a writ petition filed by the respondents concerning State land originally leased under the Tubewell Sinking Scheme. The core legal questions involved whether the Commissioner's refusal to permit the transfer of lease rights amounted to condonation of a breach of lease conditions, and whether the Provincial Government could lawfully resume the land without notice to the respondents. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's finding on notice—violating principles of natural justice—was unassailable and that the observations made by the High Court did not fetter or preclude the Board of Revenue from exercising its independent revisional jurisdiction in the matter. The key principle laid down is that executive resumption of land without affording an opportunity of hearing to affected parties violates natural justice, and observations in writ jurisdiction do not oust statutory revisional forums where no prior adjudication by such forum has taken place.
Questions settled- Whether the resumption of State land by the Provincial Government without notice to the affected heirs violates the principles of natural justice?
- Does a refusal of permission to transfer lease rights by a designated authority amount to condonation of a breach of lease conditions?
- Can an observation by a High Court in writ proceedings affect or curtail the statutory revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue?
- INAM ALI vs GENERAL MANAGER, HEAVY MECHANICAL COVIPLEY,TAXIL1976 PLC 64 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-01-30Read full judgment →
- In re : Syed SARWARUDDIN--Debtor vs NOT1976 PLD Karachi 1049 · Sindh High Court · 1969-11-26Read full judgment →
- In Re : Syed SARWARUDDIN vs NOT1976 PLD Karachi 1049 · Sindh High Court · 1969-11-26Read full judgment →
- In Re : APPLICATION UNDER SECTIONS 153 & 153-A, COMPANIES ACT, 1913 vs1976 PLD Lahore 850 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-24Read full judgment →
- IMTIAZ ALI vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1976 PLC 12 · Labour Court · 1975-01-10Read full judgment →
- IMAM BAKEISH vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 637 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1975-12-01Read full judgment →
- IMAM ALI SHAH vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN1976 SCMR 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a revision petition in a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the suit for pre-emption was barred by limitation under Section 31 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, based on the date of physical possession under the sale. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were correct, concluding that an agreement with a tenant for future attornment when the vendor was not in actual physical possession does not constitute actual physical possession 'under the sale' to trigger the period of limitation. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that physical possession under a sale requires actual delivery of possession by the vendor, and an agreement with a tenant regarding attornment without such actual delivery is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of limitation provisions under pre-emption law.
Questions settled- Does an agreement with a tenant for future attornment constitute actual physical possession under a sale for the purposes of limitation in a pre-emption suit?
- What is the starting point of limitation for filing a pre-emption suit when physical possession under the sale is disputed?
- Can a vendor who is not in actual physical possession of the land deliver physical possession to a vendee to satisfy pre-emption limitation requirements?