Latest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.
- GHULAM. NABI AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1198 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SHABIR vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1063 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SHABBIR vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 615 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-21Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SHABBIR AND 5 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-26Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SHABBIR (SABIR) vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 142 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1295 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL AND Another vs THE STATE1976 PLD Peshawar 144 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-06-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1165 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 69 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RABBANI BUTT AND 5 OTHERS vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES1976 PLD Karachi 363 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR AND ANOTHER vs The STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1332 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI ETC. GHULAM NABI ETC. vs Mst. HAJIRAN BIBI ETC. ATAULLAH1976 SCMR 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a suit filed by the petitioners (legal representatives of Khushi Muhammad) seeking possession of land. The core legal questions concerned the legitimacy of a marriage and the subsequent status of an heir, the ancestral nature of the suit property, and the standing of a collateral relative to challenge an alienation. The trial court had dismissed the suit, finding the marriage valid and the property not ancestral. The first appellate court reversed these findings, but the High Court restored the trial court's position, holding the marriage valid and the property not ancestral. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the petitioners failed to properly plead or prove the invalidity of the divorce regarding the respondent's prior marriage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-ancestral nature of the property and the validity of the marriage were not subject to interference, as no legal error was demonstrated in the lower courts' reasoning.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the validity of a marriage based on a prior marriage without having raised a specific plea or framed an issue regarding the lack of a valid divorce?
- Are concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of property as ancestral or non-ancestral subject to interference in appeal?
- Does the failure to produce a divorce deed in court automatically invalidate a subsequent marriage when there is other evidence of a valid union?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1976 PLD Lahore 720 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND 2 Other1976 PLD Lahore 570 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs ALLAH YAR AND 2 Other1976 PLD Supreme Court 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a murder case where the trial court convicted three respondents under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced them to death for the murder of the appellant's son, Saif Ullah. On appeal, the High Court altered the convictions of two respondents to section 304 Part I on the ground of grave and sudden provocation, and reduced the conviction of the third respondent to section 324. The core legal questions involved whether the respondents' actions fell under the First Exception to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code regarding grave and sudden provocation, and whether the common intention of all respondents was properly applied. The Supreme Court held that the respondents could not claim grave and sudden provocation as they were retaliating against the lawful impounding of their trespassing cattle, and that all respondents shared a common intention to kill. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the murder convictions, and sentenced the respondents to rigorous imprisonment for life along with fines.
Questions settled- Whether the plea of grave and sudden provocation is available to an accused who initiates an attack in retaliation against the lawful impounding of trespassing cattle?
- Can an accused rely on self-defence when participating in a concerted armed attack arising from their own criminal act?
- Does the nature of the injury inflicted by a co-accused negate the existence of a common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- How should the courts evaluate competing versions of an incident involving a plea of self-defence in criminal trials?
- GHULAM MOHY UD DIN vs MANZOOR ELAHI AND Other1976 SCMR 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the High Court dismissing the appellant's letters patent appeal concerning the transfer of a disputed shop in Rawalpindi. The core legal question involves whether the High Court and appellate forums erred in appreciating concurrent factual findings of settlement authorities regarding possession and transfer eligibility under settlement laws. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner, which concluded that the appellant's claim form entry was an interpolation and that he was never in possession of the property, were based on proper appreciation of evidence and could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, additional documents not produced before the settlement authorities or the High Court cannot be introduced for the first time before the apex court. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact based on evidence by specialized tribunals will not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction, and fresh evidence cannot be introduced at the appellate stage without prior foundational record.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities be interfered with in writ jurisdiction?
- Whether fresh evidence not produced before the lower tribunals or the High Court can be allowed to be introduced at the Supreme Court stage?
- Are questions regarding possession and interpolation in settlement registers amenable to interference under constitutional jurisdiction?
- GHULAM MOHAMMAD vs Mst. SUBAN AND 11 OTHERS1976 P Cr. L J 39 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-07Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MAHBUB vs ISLAMABAD OMNI BUS SERVICE1976 PLC 311 · Labour Court · 1976-03-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM KADAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LARKANA AND 9 OTHERS1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 86 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1975-10-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1402 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs MESSRS ZEENAT TEXTILE MILLS, LYALLPUR1976 PLC 785 · Labour Court · 1975-01-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND Another1976 SCMR 75 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition concerning the appointment of a Lambardar under rule 19 of the Land Revenue Rules. The petitioner was initially appointed Lambardar by the Collector, but the appointment went through successive appeals and revisions before the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, culminating in a review order by the Member Board of Revenue appointing the respondent. The petitioner challenged the review order in the High Court, arguing that the Board of Revenue lacked the power to review its order under section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1969. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Board of Revenue possesses plenary power of review under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that he was the nearest eligible heir under rule 19(2)(a) of the Land Revenue Rules. The Supreme Court held that rule 19 is directory and serves as a guideline for appointing the most fit person, rather than conferring an absolute legal right based purely on inheritance. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, establishing that the appointment of a Lambardar is a matter of administrative discretion for revenue authorities and fitness is a subjective standard not to be equated with property disputes.
Questions settled- Whether the Board of Revenue has the power to review its own order under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act?
- Does rule 19(2)(a) of the Land Revenue Rules confer an absolute legal right of appointment upon the nearest eligible heir?
- Is the determination of fitness for the office of Lambardar a subjective process resting in the discretion of revenue authorities?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN AND 14 Other vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, P. W. R., LAHORE1976 PLC 908 · Labour CourtRead full judgment →
- GHULAM HAIDER vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SWD, IRRIGATION &1976 PLC [C.S.T.] 84 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- GHULAM GHOUS vs DISTICT T. B. ASSOCIATION, LYALLPUR1976 PLC 79 · Labour Court · 1975-07-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM GHOSE vs THE STATEPLD i976 Peshawar 132 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-06-06Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1134 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-11Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AHMAD vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Lahore 773 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-21Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS KHAN vs ZAKAULLAH AND 11 Other1976 PLD Lahore 21 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves criminal proceedings before the Lahore High Court, reported as PLD 1976 Lahore 21. The judgment text provided contains only the appearance of counsel for the State. Due to the extreme brevity of the text, no substantive legal questions, core holdings, or specific principles can be discerned from the record.
- GHUL AM RASUL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1976 PLD Peshawar 144 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-06-06Read full judgment →
- GHUL AM NABI vs THE STATE AND 5 OTHERS1976 P Cr. L J 94 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-12Read full judgment →
- GHAUS KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 777 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-02Read full judgment →
- GHARIB ALAM AND 3 OTHERS Convict vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 980 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-11Read full judgment →
- GHANAM RANG vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 655 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-03Read full judgment →
- GH UL AM M U HAM MAD Convict vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 258 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-17Read full judgment →
- GENERAL STEEL TOOLS COMPANY, GUJRANWALA vs PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT No. 2, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1976 PLC 397 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-31Read full judgment →
- GENERAL STEEL TOOLS COMPANY, GUJRANWALA vs LAHORE AND 2 Oth1?Rs1976 PLD Lahore 528 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by a Junior Labour Court and a Punjab Labour Court directing the petitioner-firm to pay gratuity to a former employee. The core legal questions involved whether the Junior Labour Court had jurisdiction under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to adjudicate a gratuity claim given the concurrent provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and whether a reconstituted firm was liable for gratuity accrued over continuous service spanning prior partnership changes. The Lahore High Court held that the employee had concurrent remedies under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and was entitled to choose the more beneficial forum. Furthermore, Labour Courts are not 'Civil Courts' barred by section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the reconstituted firm was liable for continuous service upon the employee's retirement. The petition was dismissed accordingly.
Questions settled- Whether the Junior Labour Court has jurisdiction under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to adjudicate a claim for gratuity notwithstanding the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
- Whether section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 bars a Labour Court from entertaining a workman's claim for dues?
- Whether a reconstituted partnership firm is liable to pay gratuity for continuous service rendered prior to the latest reconstitution of the firm?
- Does the creation of a remedy under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 exclude the jurisdiction of Labour Courts under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- GANGA SARAN & SONS (PVT.) LTD. vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE1976 PTD 92 · Calcutta High CourtRead full judgment →
- GAMAN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 528 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-04Read full judgment →
- G. T. S. LABOUR UNION, LYALLPUR vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1976 PLC 737 · Labour Court · 1975-02-05Read full judgment →
- G. T. S. LABOUR UNION (REVD.), LYALLPUR vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT1976 PLC 160 · Labour Court · 1973-10-14Read full judgment →
- FOOT NOTE}} MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN vs STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI1976 PLD Karachi 778 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-03Read full judgment →
- FOOT NOTE}} HOTEL INTERCONTINENTAL, KARACHI vs VTH SIND LABOUR1976 PLD Karachi 301 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V, which directed the reinstatement of several workers with full back benefits after setting aside the decision of the Junior Labour Court. The core legal questions involved whether a grievance notice under Section 25-A(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is mandatory for all employment termination applications, whether subsection (6) of the said section provides a permanent alternative option bypassing the grievance notice, and to what extent a Labour Court can scrutinize the findings of a domestic enquiry. The High Court held that the mandatory requirement of serving a grievance notice under Section 25-A(1) applies to all cases not specifically covered by the transitional timeline of subsection (6), making the workers' applications before the Junior Labour Court incompetent due to non-compliance. It further held that Labour Courts cannot act as appellate courts to re-examine findings of valid domestic enquiries without plausible reasons or patent irregularities. The petition was consequently allowed and the impugned reinstatement order was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether the service of a grievance notice under Section 25-A(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is mandatory before approaching a Junior Labour Court?
- Does subsection (6) of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 provide an perpetual alternative option allowing workers to bypass the grievance notice requirement at any time?
- To what extent can a Labour Court scrutinize or interfere with the findings of a domestic enquiry conducted by an employer?
- FOOT NOTE}} CHHAPPAR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE CHIEF LAND1976 PLD Karachi 747 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the orders of the Chief Land Commissioner, which declared a land transaction invalid under Martial Law Regulation 64. The petitioners claimed ownership based on an agreement of sale and argued that their possession constituted part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners’ possession, initially held as lessees, satisfied the requirements of part performance to validate the transaction, and whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to review the Land Commissioner's decision despite the statutory bar. The Court held that the petitioners failed to establish part performance, as their possession remained referable to their status as lessees rather than the contract of sale, and no acts were done in furtherance of the contract. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Land Commissioner's order was within the scope of the Regulation, thereby attracting the bar of jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the judiciary cannot interfere with decisions made by authorities acting within their lawful jurisdiction under the Martial Law Regulations.
Questions settled- Does the continued possession of a lessee constitute part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 in the absence of acts done in furtherance of a contract of sale?
- Can a High Court exercise writ jurisdiction to review an order passed by an authority under Martial Law Regulation 64 if the order is within the scope of the Regulation?
- Is the payment of price a sine qua non for the completion of a sale under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- FOOT NOTE}} AHMAD HADI SHAH AND micas vs RASHID TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 799 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-17Read full judgment →
- FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK; KARACHI vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1976 PTD 174 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK, KARACHI vs INCOMETAX OFFICER, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 552 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-07Read full judgment →
- FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK, KARACHI vs INCOME 'FAX OFFICER, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 552 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-07Read full judgment →
- FEROZSONS vs RASHID TARIQ1976 PLC 279 · Labour Court · 1974-09-12Read full judgment →
- FEROZE AND 9 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 916 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-18Read full judgment →
- FEROZ vs THE STATE1976 SCMR 532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had confirmed his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and his death sentence for the murder of Nooran Shah. The background of the case involved a tragic history of prior murders allegedly committed by the deceased, including the petitioner's brother and father. The petitioner was apprehended at the spot immediately after shooting the deceased inside a court-room. Counsel for the petitioner conceded the conviction itself but pleaded for mitigation of the sentence to imprisonment for life in view of the background. The Supreme Court held that while a lesser sentence might have been appropriate in the peculiar circumstances, the death sentence imposed was perfectly legal, and the Court does not normally interfere to reduce a legal sentence on a petition for leave to appeal, leaving the matter of mercy to the Executive. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not normally interfere with a legal sentence of death on a leave petition merely because a lesser sentence could have been appropriate, as executive clemency is the proper avenue for such mitigation.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere to reduce a legal death sentence on a petition for leave to appeal based on mitigating circumstances?
- Does a tragic background of prior family murders justify the reduction of a death sentence by the judiciary?
- Is executive clemency the proper forum for addressing mitigating circumstances after a legal death sentence is confirmed by the courts?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND Other vs Ch. MANZOOR ELAHI1976 PLD Supreme Court 430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a review petition filed by the Federation of Pakistan against a previous judgment of the Supreme Court concerning detention, Fundamental Rights, and the effect of a Proclamation of Emergency. The core legal question was whether the suspension of the right to move courts for the enforcement of certain Fundamental Rights during an emergency deprives citizens of protection against executive actions not backed by law, and whether grounds for reviewing the earlier judgment existed. The Court held that no valid grounds for review were made out, noting that executive actions must remain authorized by law, and accordingly dismissed the review petition. The key principle laid down is that executive actions resulting in the deprivation of liberty must strictly conform to legal authority, and the suspension of enforcement remedies during an emergency does not grant the executive immunity to act contrary to constitutional guarantees such as Articles 4 and 9.
Questions settled- Does the suspension of the right to move a court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights during an emergency legalize executive actions not backed by law?
- Are the provisions of clause (1) and clause (2) of Article 233 of the Constitution of Pakistan to be read as complementary to each other?
- Whether the failure to produce a detained person before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours renders the detention illegal?
- What are the valid grounds for maintaining a review petition against a judgment of the Supreme Court?
- FAZLE HUSSAIN ETC vs INAYAT ALI Etc.1976 PLD Lahore 347 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-27Read full judgment →
- FAZAL vs INCHARGE, C. I. A. STAFF, JARANWALA1976 P Cr. L J 730 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-08Read full judgment →
- FAZAL VEGETABLE GHEE MILLS vs MULAZIM HUSSAIN AND 18 OTHERS1976 PLC 274 · Labour Court · 1975-03-06Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MUHAMMAD vs ALI AHMAD AND 3 Other1976 SCMR 391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Criminal petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging an order of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court that granted bail to three accused-respondents in a case registered under Sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that bail should not have been granted because the accused were nominated in the First Information Report with specific overt acts, including a fatal blow to the deceased's head. The High Court had admitted the respondents to bail on grounds of a counter-version arising from the same incident, wherein process was issued against the complainant party, the occurrence took place at the respondent's well, a plea of private defence was raised, and some accused sustained injuries, including a grievous head injury. The Supreme Court held that interference with the High Court's discretionary order was not warranted under the facts and circumstances of the case, and dismissed the petition, observing that the petitioner remained at liberty to seek cancellation if the privilege of bail was misused.
Questions settled- Whether the existence of a plausible counter-version and injuries sustained by the accused party justify the grant of bail in a murder case?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court's discretionary order granting bail where a plea of self-defence and a counter-case are under trial?
- Can a complainant seek cancellation of bail before the High Court if the accused misuses the concession of bail granted by it?
- FAZAL MASIH vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KAMALIA1976 PLC 706 · Labour Court · 1975-01-01Read full judgment →
- FAZAL KARIM vs Mst. KUBRA BEGUM, And 5 Other1976 SCMR 511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from a property in Rawalpindi. The dispute arose after the respondents, successors-in-interest to the property, served a notice under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, demanding rent. The petitioner failed to pay rent, leading the respondents to file an ejectment application. While the Rent Controller and the District Judge initially exercised discretion in the petitioner's favour, finding no default or excusing it, the High Court reversed this decision, finding the petitioner had indeed defaulted. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the lower courts regarding the finding of default in rent payment. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts exercised their discretion in an arbitrary manner and that the High Court was perfectly justified in its interference. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the ejectment order.
Questions settled- Is the High Court justified in interfering with the discretion of a Rent Controller if that discretion was exercised in an arbitrary manner?
- Does a failure to pay rent as demanded under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 constitute a default warranting ejectment?
- FAZAL ILAHI vs Malik MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN1976 PLC [C.S.T.] 57 · Administrative Tribunal · 1975-11-05Read full judgment →
- FAZAL HUSSAIN vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1976 P Cr. L J 747 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two connected criminal revision petitions arising from a dispute over the interim custody (supardari) of a tractor. The tractor was sold to the petitioner, Fazal Hussain, by a co-owner, after which the other co-owner lodged an F.I.R. for theft. The police recovered the tractor from Fazal Hussain and initially handed it over to the complainant. However, the Magistrate subsequently modified this ex parte order and granted supardari to Fazal Hussain, from whose custody the tractor was recovered. This order was later cancelled by the Magistrate on a police report alleging Fazal Hussain was an accused. The High Court held that, in matters of interim custody, the property should normally be returned to the person from whose possession it was recovered. Furthermore, an ex parte interim custody order is not final and can be modified, meaning the bar on review under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not apply. Consequently, the High Court set aside the cancellation order and restored the custody of the tractor to Fazal Hussain.
Questions settled- Whether property seized by the police during an investigation should normally be handed over on supardari to the person from whose possession it was recovered?
- Can a Magistrate modify an ex parte order of interim custody, or does the prohibition of review under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar such modification?
- What is the effect of a civil court's temporary injunction on the police's authority to remove property from a party's custody during an investigation?
- FAZAL HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS vs The STATE1976 SCMR 124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a petition for bail in a cross-case involving allegations under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners asserted that their first information report (FIR) regarding the death of their companion was registered first, whereas the complainant's cross-FIR was lodged approximately twenty-four hours later when the investigating officer arrived at the scene. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to the confirmation of interim bail given the delayed cross-FIR, the occurrence of a fatality solely on the appellants' side, and the unresolved question of aggression. The Supreme Court of Pakistan accepted the appeal and confirmed the interim bail. The Court held that the significant delay in lodging the cross-FIR, the fact that a fatality occurred only on the appellants' side, and the failure to commence inquiry proceedings despite the lapse of nearly a year justified the confirmation of bail, leaving the determination of the aggressor party to the trial court.
Questions settled- Whether a delay of twenty-four hours in lodging a cross-FIR, explained by allegations of being surrounded by the opposing party, is a relevant factor in determining a plea for bail?
- Can bail be granted or confirmed where there is a fatality on one side and only non-fatal injuries on the other, and the question of which party was the aggressor remains undetermined?
- Does an inordinate delay in commencing inquiry or trial proceedings constitute a valid ground for confirming interim bail in a cross-case?
- FAZAL ELAHEE vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND ANOTHER1976 P Cr. L J 634 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-04Read full judgment →
- FAZAL DIN vs The SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Another1976 SCMR 389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which declined to interfere with the transfer of a disputed property by Settlement authorities. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, Fazal Din, was entitled to the transfer of the house in question, bearing No. B-II-5/8-64 in Okara, based on his claim of prior possession, as opposed to the respondent, Muhammad Ibrahim, to whom the property was transferred due to his occupation of a major portion of the house and the indivisible nature of the property. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of prior possession. Despite being granted an adjournment to produce certified copies of the relevant record to prove his prior possession, the petitioner failed to do so after a significant lapse of time. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Settlement authorities and the High Court regarding the transfer of the property.
Questions settled- Does the failure to produce certified copies of the record to substantiate a claim of prior possession justify the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal?
- Can a High Court's refusal to interfere with a property transfer by Settlement authorities be challenged when the petitioner fails to provide evidence of their claim?
- FAZAL AHMAD vs GENERAL MANAGER, HEAVY MECHANICAL COMPLEX, TAXILA1976 PLC 70 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-01-16Read full judgment →
- FAZAL AHMAD AND Another vs SHAH BEGUM AND Other1976 SCMR 30 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from a suit filed by the brothers of an issueless Jat donor challenging the validity of a gift of ancestral land made to his sister. The plaintiffs contended that under the customary law governing the family in matters of succession and alienation, the gift was void and ineffective against their reversionary rights. The trial court decreed the suit, but both the District Judge and the High Court dismissed it, finding the gift valid under the custom prevailing among Jats of District Jhelum. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the Riwaj-e-Am of District Jhelum (1946) and the instances cited under Question No. 107. The Court observed that while gifts to sisters were historically less favored than those to daughters, numerous instances and judicial decisions established that Muslim tribes of the district, including Jats, had increasingly exercised larger powers of gift and testation in favor of female relatives. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding the gift valid and dismissing the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether under the customary law of the Jhelum District a sonless proprietor belonging to the Jat tribe can validly gift ancestral land to his sister?
- What is the evidentiary value of the compiled Riwaj-e-Am and the instances cited therein when determining the existence of a custom of alienation?
- Does a proven customary power to make a gift inter vivos raise an initial presumption of a co-extensive power of testation under Punjab Customary Law?
- FATIMA JINNA H MEDICAL COLLEGE EMPLOYEES' UNION vs REGISTRAR, TRADE1976 PLC 670 · Labour Court · 1973-05-11Read full judgment →
- FATIMA BIB! AND 2 OTHERS vs INAYATULLAH TATER AND ANOTHER1976 P Cr. L J 1076 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-05Read full judgment →
- FATEH SHER AND 9 OTHERS MUHAMMAD AKRAM SHAH AHD vs THE STATE THE STATE1976 SCMR 140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two petitions arose from orders of the Lahore High Court concerning post-arrest bail and the cancellation of bail in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 307, 109 and other provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code in February 1973. In Petition No. 228 of 1975, ten accused sought bail, two of whom had remained incarcerated since 1973 while others had been granted bail previously. In Petition No. 231 of 1975, six accused challenged the cancellation of their bail by the High Court. The core legal question involved whether the petitioners were entitled to bail or restoration of bail pending the conclusion of the inquiry. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the preliminary inquiry was virtually concluded and only the examination of certain prosecution witnesses remained, it was not desirable to release the accused on bail. The Court dismissed both petitions while directing that the inquiry be concluded with the utmost expedition.
Questions settled- Whether accused persons are entitled to post-arrest bail when a criminal inquiry is near completion?
- Can bail once granted be cancelled by the High Court?
- Should petitions for bail be dismissed when only the examination of remaining prosecution witnesses is pending?
- FATEH MUHAMMAD vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, MULTAN1976 PLC 127 · Labour Court · 1974-10-14Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMA D AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1062 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-02Read full judgment →
- FARUKI FLOUR & GENERAL MILLS LTD. vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1976 PLC 453(2) · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- FAROOQ JAMIL vs THE STAVE AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Lahore 58 · Lahore High Court · 1975-09-17Read full judgment →
- FARID MAJID AND ANOTHER vs MOHAMMAD NAWAB1976 PLD Karachi 891 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal seeks to question the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge dismissing an application under section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for want of evidence under Order XVII, rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal questions involve the competency of an appeal under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against such a dismissal, the exclusion of time under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and the legality of treating an arbitration application as an ordinary suit. The court held that an appeal under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is not competent against an order merely dismissing an application for want of evidence rather than setting aside an award, but elected to treat the memo of appeal as a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The key principles laid down include that the trial court must follow the procedure prescribed under the Arbitration Act, 1940 rather than ordinary suit procedures, that the burden to challenge an award lies on the objector, and that the High Court may suo motu exercise revisional powers notwithstanding limitation.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is competent against an order dismissing an application under section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for want of evidence?
- Can the time spent prosecuting an appeal in a wrong court due to counsel's mistake be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
- Whether a trial court can follow the procedure of an ordinary suit when dealing with an application under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Can the High Court treat an incompetent memo of appeal as a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 suo motu?
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1318 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-05Read full judgment →
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs BUREWALA TEXTILE MILLS LTD., BUREWALA1976 PLC 465 · Labour Court · 1976-03-17Read full judgment →
- FAQIR ALI vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT1976 PLD Lahore 298 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a trial court order issuing a warrant of attachment before judgment against the appellant's tractor. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted within its jurisdiction under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, when it attached the property without proper notice or evidence of the defendant's intent to obstruct execution. The High Court held that the trial court failed to follow the mandatory procedural requirements of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5, which necessitates giving the defendant an opportunity to show cause or furnish security before attachment. The Court further determined that because the order did not comply with Rule 6, it was not strictly appealable under Order XLIII, Rule 1(q). However, invoking its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Court set aside the attachment. The key principle laid down is that attachment before judgment is an extraordinary measure requiring strict procedural compliance; vague allegations of property disposal are insufficient, and the court must be satisfied that the defendant specifically intends to obstruct or delay the execution of a potential decree.
Questions settled- Can a court order attachment before judgment without first issuing a notice to the defendant to show cause or furnish security?
- Is an order of attachment before judgment that fails to comply with the procedural requirements of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 appealable?
- Can the High Court exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside an irregular order of attachment?
- Are vague allegations regarding the disposal of property sufficient to justify an order of attachment before judgment?
- FALAK SHER vs Hafiz SAEED AKHTAR AND OTHERS1976 P Cr. L J 612 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-07Read full judgment →
- FALAK SHER AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 724 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1974-09-26Read full judgment →
- FAIZ NAJMUDDIN ABDUL ALI vs THE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, RAWAL1976 PLD Karachi 1084 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-03Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs ASSOCIATED CEMENT1976 PLC 270 · Labour Court · 1974-11-29Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 7 OTHERS1976 PLD Quetta 23 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-03-10Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD AND 2 Other vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 7 Other1976 PLD Quetta 23 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-03-10Read full judgment →
- ESTATE OFFICER KARACHI vs AKHUND ABDUL LATIF AHD 2 Other1976 SCMR 176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that directed the Estate Officer, Karachi, to vacate a requisitioned property. The property was originally requisitioned in 1949 under the Sind Requisition of Land Act, 1947, primarily to accommodate foreign diplomats in the then-Federal Capital. Over time, the purpose of the requisitioning shifted, and the property was allotted to various government servants, despite an appellate order suggesting the requisition should be temporary. Furthermore, the owner faced punitive action from the Collector regarding unauthorized construction on the plot, which was actually committed by a government allottee. The Supreme Court held that while the appellate authority's observations were not strictly binding, they warranted consideration, which the requisitioning authority failed to provide. The Court emphasized that the continued requisitioning, despite the cessation of the original purpose and the existence of a policy directive limiting requisition periods, had become harsh and unjustified. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to grant relief to the owner.
Questions settled- Can a requisitioning authority continue to hold property when the original public purpose for which it was requisitioned has ceased to exist?
- Is an appellate authority's observation regarding the duration of a requisition order legally binding on the requisitioning authority?
- Can an owner be held liable for unauthorized construction on a requisitioned property where the construction was carried out by a government allottee?
- EMPLOYEES' WELFARE UNION vs R. B. INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 297 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenges the decision of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding whether a wage increase granted to workers via a settlement dated 15th May 1974 constituted a 'cost of living allowance' or a general increase in basic salary. The core legal question was whether this increase, which the employer argued was intended to offset statutory cost-of-living relief, fell under the proviso to Section 8 of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973. The Court held that the settlement explicitly designated the increase as an addition to the 'basic monthly salary' rather than cost-of-living relief. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the Explanation to Section 8, added by the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Act, 1974, mandates that wage increases not specifically designated as cost-of-living relief cannot be deemed as such. Consequently, the Tribunal’s failure to consider this statutory Explanation constituted an error of law patent on the record. The Court ruled that the increase was a basic salary adjustment, not cost-of-living relief, and set aside the Tribunal's decision as being without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Does a wage increase granted in a settlement constitute a 'cost of living allowance' if not explicitly designated as such?
- Can the High Court interfere with an administrative tribunal's decision if there is an error of law patent on the record?
- Under the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, what constitutes an increase intended to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living?
- EMPLOYEES' UNION JAMIA, KARACHI vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, SIND1976 PLC 207 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-01-25Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs THE CHAIRMAN, BROOKE BOND (PAK.) LTD., LAHORE1976 PLC 870 · Labour Court · 1975-07-07Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs SMITH KLINE & FRENCH OF PAKISTAN LTD.1976 PLC 232 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-09-02Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HEALTH1976 PLC 656 · Labour CourtRead full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs PARADISE HOTEL1976 PLC 298 · Labour Court · 1975-11-23Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs PAKISTAN SECURITY PRINTING CORPORATION1976 PLC 299 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-03-11Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs PAKISTAN CENTRAL COTTON COMMITTEE1976 PLC 730 · Labour Court · 1975-02-19Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs NATIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICE (PAKISTAN) LTD., LAHORE AND ANOTBBR1976 PLC 564 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-06-05Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs MESSRS S. I. T. A.1976 PLC 91 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-12-17Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs MESSRS RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS Co. LTD.; LYALLPUR1976 PLC 123 · Labour Court · 1974-10-23Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs MESSRS NATIONAL SPINNING MILLS LTD.1976 PLC 667 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs MESSERS LAHORE CHEMICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL1976 PLC 880 · Labour Court · 1975-07-06Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs MERCK SHARP & DOHME OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI1976 PLC 213 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs JALEEL BROTHERS LTD., KARACHI1976 PLC 97 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-12-03Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs GRINDLAYS BANK LTD., RAWALPINDI1976 PLC 922 · Labour Court · 1976-08-28Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs FISHERMAN's CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD., KARACHI1976 PLC 633 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-05-20Read full judgment →