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.
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs CRESCENT SUGAR MILLS LTD., LYALLPUR1976 PLC 165 · Labour Court · 1974-09-04Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES UNION vs BROOKE BOND (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI1976 PLC 873 · Labour Court · 1975-07-04Read full judgment →
- ELAHI BAKHSH LAGARI vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE1976 PLC 482 · Labour Court · 1973-08-03Read full judgment →
- EJAZ AHMED vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB THROUGH MEMBER (COLONIES), LAHORE AND 3 Other1976 PLD Lahore 563 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses multiple writ petitions challenging the authority of an Additional Chief Land Commissioner to exercise the powers of a Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, for the disposal of colony judicial cases. The core legal question is whether the Government of Punjab could, through a notification, validly authorize an officer who is not a Member of the Board of Revenue to perform the Board's judicial functions. The Court held that the impugned orders passed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner were coram non judice and without lawful authority. The ratio is that the Board of Revenue is established as the highest court of appeal and revision in revenue cases, and the legislature intended it to be independent of government control in its judicial functions. The Government’s power to control the Board is limited to non-judicial matters. Furthermore, the statute requires that only a duly appointed Member of the Board may exercise these judicial powers. Consequently, the Court declared the proceedings conducted by the unauthorized officer to be of no legal effect, directing that the revision petitions be treated as still pending before a properly constituted Member of the Board.
Questions settled- Can the Government of Punjab authorize an officer who is not a Member of the Board of Revenue to exercise the Board's judicial powers?
- Is the Board of Revenue subject to government control in the exercise of its appellate and revisional jurisdiction?
- Does an order passed by an officer not duly appointed as a Member of the Board of Revenue constitute a valid order of the Board?
- What is the effect of a notification attempting to confer judicial powers of the Board of Revenue upon an officer not appointed as a Member?
- EHSANUL HAQUE AND Another vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO1976 PLD Lahore 501 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses several consolidated writ petitions challenging admission policies for medical colleges in Punjab. The petitioners contested the inclusion of students who passed the F.Sc. (pre-medical) supplementary examination for newly created seats, arguing they should have been reserved for annual examination candidates. They also challenged the continuation of the 'Governor's quota' for admissions and alleged that reserving seats for female students violated the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law. The Court held that authorities possess the discretion to set admission criteria for new seats and colleges, and that the petitioners had no legal grievance regarding the inclusion of supplementary candidates. Furthermore, the Court found the challenge to the Governor's quota factually meritless as it was not applicable to the current admissions. Regarding the reservation of seats for women, the Court held that such provisions are protected under the Constitution as special measures for the protection of women and children. The Court affirmed that reasonable classification based on sex for such purposes does not violate the equality clause, and consequently dismissed the petitions.
Questions settled- Can authorities include supplementary examination candidates in the admission process for newly created medical college seats?
- Does the reservation of seats for female students in medical colleges violate the constitutional prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex?
- Is the state permitted to make special provisions for the protection of women and children under the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Can a petitioner challenge admission policies based on the expectation that seats should be restricted to candidates from earlier examination cycles?
- EASTERN FEDERAL UNION INSURANCE WORKERS' UNION, KARACHI vs VT H SIND1976 PLD Karachi 274 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-23Read full judgment →
- EASTERN FEDERAL UNION INSURANCE WORKERS UNION, KARACHI vs VTH SIND1976 PLC 256 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-23Read full judgment →
- EAST AND WEST STEAMSHIP Co. UNITED ORIENTAL STEAMSHIP Co. vs THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND Other THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS KARACHI AND Other1976 PLD Supreme Court 618 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-08-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil appeals were filed by shipping companies challenging notices issued by Customs authorities demanding the filing of Bills of Entry and payment of customs duty on ocean-going vessels under the Sea Customs Act 1878 and the Tariff Act 1934. The appellants argued that a sea-going vessel does not constitute 'goods' imported for home consumption, cannot be unloaded at a wharf, and that the machinery provisions of the Sea Customs Act 1878 are inapplicable to ships. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that 'vessel' falls within the scope of goods subject to import duty under Section 20 of the Sea Customs Act 1878 read with the First Schedule of the Tariff Act 1934. The Court clarified that 'import' carries its ordinary meaning of bringing into the country, and the absence of traditional wharfage or warehousing procedures does not preclude the filing of a Bill of Entry or the assessment and collection of customs duty.
Questions settled- Does an ocean-going vessel constitute imported goods subject to customs duty under the Sea Customs Act 1878 and the Tariff Act 1934?
- Whether the inability to unload a sea-going vessel at a wharf exempts it from the requirement to file a Bill of Entry and pay import duty?
- Can customs authorities withhold port clearance under the Sea Customs Act 1878 for non-payment of assessed customs duty on a vessel?
- DR. ZUBEDA HAMID ALI TRUST THROUGH ITS TRUSTEES vs ADDITIONAL1976 PLD Karachi 777 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-09Read full judgment →
- DR. ZUBEDA HAMID ALI TRUST THROUGH Irs TRUSTEES vs ADDITIONAL1976 PLD Karachi 777 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-09Read full judgment →
- DR. MUNAWAR ALI KHAN. vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1976 SCMR 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of property under settlement laws, specifically regarding premises consisting of multiple independent flats. The petitioner sought the transfer of the entire building, while respondents sought transfer of the specific portions in their possession. The core legal question was whether the building constituted an indivisible unit or could be treated as separate, independent houses for transfer purposes, and whether the Settlement Authorities' decision to treat it as divided was valid. The Supreme Court held that under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, a house is treated as a single unit unless the Chief Settlement Commissioner decides otherwise. The Court affirmed that the Settlement Authorities possess the discretion to divide a building into separate, independent units based on structural and amenity-wise independence. Since the division was neither perverse nor arbitrary, the Court refused to interfere with the finding of fact. Furthermore, the Court held that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by claiming an order was validly passed by an authority while simultaneously arguing that the authority lacked jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can the Settlement Authorities treat a building as divided into separate, independent houses for the purpose of transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Is a finding of fact regarding the summoning of records by the Chief Settlement Commissioner before a specific date subject to interference in writ jurisdiction?
- Can a party simultaneously claim that an order passed by an authority is valid and that the same authority lacked jurisdiction to pass it?
- DR. MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JHANG Arts ANOTHER,1976 PLD Lahore 758 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 concerning a property taken over by the State as having escheated on the premise that the propositus left no heir in Pakistan. The petitioner moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner for desealing the property, asserting that heirs existed elsewhere, but the Deputy Commissioner disposed of it summarily with a brief noting of "seen, file" without applying his independent mind or providing reasons. The core legal question was whether a quasi-judicial authority can dispose of a matter without a speaking order containing reasons. The Lahore High Court held that the Deputy Commissioner's order was without lawful authority and of no legal effect, emphasizing that persons performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions are under an implied duty to render speaking orders that reflect independent application of mind and reasoning. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh, reasoned decision on the petitioner's application.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority without giving reasons is lawful?
- Is it essential for the State to establish that a propositus left no heir in the world rather than just in Pakistan under the law of escheat?
- Does a summary endorsement such as "seen, file" satisfy the legal requirement of a judicial determination?
- DR. MUHAMMAD AHSAN AKHTAR vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 5 (2) · Punjab Appellate Tribunal · 1974-10-13Read full judgment →
- DR. AIJAZ HUSSAIN QURESHI vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS1976 PLC 47 · Lahore High Court · 1975-09-30Read full judgment →
- Dr. AIJAZ HUSSAIN QURESHI vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION1976 PLD Lahore 611 · Lahore High Court · 1975-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an interim order passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) directing the petitioner to reinstate dismissed employees pending the final disposal of a complaint filed under Section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the NIRC possesses the jurisdiction to grant interim reinstatement as a form of relief during the pendency of proceedings concerning unfair labour practices. The Lahore High Court held that the NIRC lacked the authority to pass such an interim order. The Court reasoned that the power to direct reinstatement is not incidental or ancillary to the adjudication process, but is a consequential power that only arises after a finding of guilt is established under the relevant provisions. Consequently, the Court declared the interim order to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The judgment establishes the principle that statutory tribunals, being creatures of statute with defined jurisdiction, cannot exercise inherent powers to grant interim relief unless such power is expressly conferred or necessarily implied as an ancillary procedural requirement.
Questions settled- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have the power to order interim reinstatement of employees pending the final disposal of a complaint under Section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- Is the power to direct reinstatement under the Industrial Relations Ordinance an incidental or ancillary power to the adjudication process?
- Can a statutory tribunal exercise inherent powers to grant interim relief where such power is not expressly conferred by the governing statute?
- Dr. AIJAZ HASSAN QURESHI vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Lahore 314 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-27Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 1078 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-27Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs PAKISTAN AND 3 Other1976 PLD Karachi 1078 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-27Read full judgment →
- DR. MAQBOOL AHMAD JAUHAR vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 333 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-13Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD AND Others vs Mst. BADAL JAN AND Other1976 SCMR 112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning the disputed allotment of agricultural land in District Hazara. The land was originally allotted to heirs of a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir for maintenance. Subsequently, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner allotted portions of this same land to other claimants in satisfaction of their land claims. The original allottees challenged these allotments, arguing they were made without notice and violated the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. The High Court set aside the allotments to the new claimants, ruling that the land previously allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees was excluded from the general pool for allotment to other displaced persons under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. Furthermore, the High Court found that the cancellation of the original allotment occurred without providing notice to the affected parties. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, finding the reasoning unassailable, and dismissed the petition. The judgment affirms that statutory protections for specific classes of refugees must be respected and that administrative actions affecting vested rights require proper notice.
Questions settled- Does the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme exclude land allotted to refugees from Jammu and Kashmir from the general pool for allotment to other displaced persons?
- Is an allotment of land valid if made without providing notice to the previous allottees?
- Can administrative authorities re-allot land already reserved for the maintenance of specific refugee categories?
- DOSA SHAHADAT KHAN vs THE STATE SULTAN AND 4 Other (On Appeal From The Judgment And Order Of The Lahore High Court,1976 PLD Supreme Court 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two criminal appeals arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the murder of one Sarang and injuries caused to his father. The primary legal question was whether the High Court erred in failing to apply the provisions of Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to the co-accused, thereby holding them constructively liable for the murder, despite their acquittal on the charge of rioting under Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the application of Section 149 requires a finding that the accused were members of an unlawful assembly. Because the State did not appeal the acquittal under Section 148, the foundation for invoking Section 149 was absent. Consequently, the Court found no legal basis to interfere with the High Court's decision or to order a retrial, as the lower courts' finding that no unlawful assembly existed was not unreasonable. The principle established is that constructive liability under Section 149 cannot be imposed in the absence of a finding of an unlawful assembly, particularly where the acquittal for rioting remains unchallenged.
Questions settled- Can constructive liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be applied in the absence of a finding of an unlawful assembly?
- Does an acquittal on a charge of rioting under Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 preclude the application of Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is a retrial warranted when the lower courts have concurrently found that the accused did not form an unlawful assembly?
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1976 PLC 818 · Labour Court · 1976-04-29Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, P.W.R., MULTAN vs SHARMAN BIBI1976 PLC 708 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-07-23Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, LYALLPUR vs MUHAMMAD AZAM ANJUM (CONDUCTOR)1976 PLC 159 · Labour Court · 1973-12-16Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, LYALLPUR vs Mirza1976 PLC 131 · Labour Court · 1974-09-13Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., LYALLPUR vs WAZIR AHMAD1976 PLC 935 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-04-25Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, G. T. S., DERA GHAZI KHAN vs AMANULLAH1976 PLC 703 · Labour Court · 1974-01-16Read full judgment →
- DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PESHAWAR vs SANAULLAH AND OTHERS1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 156 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1976-04-29Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 137 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-19Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 689 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-17Read full judgment →
- DILDAR SHAH vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 232 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-19Read full judgment →
- DIAMOND SILK MILLS LTD. vs WORKERS' UNION1976 PLC 453(1) · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-03-24Read full judgment →
- DEWAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 1368 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- DEWAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs PAKISTAN AND Other1976 PLD Karachi 1368 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-22Read full judgment →
- DEWAN ALI AND 7 Other vs BARKAT ALI AND 10 Other1976 PLD Lahore 147 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from a dispute regarding the inheritance and entitlement to land allotments made on the basis of a common refugee claim of a deceased right-holder who died in India in 1945. The petitioners contended that the allotment of land in specific villages should enure solely to their benefit to the exclusion of the heirs of a deceased female heir, Mst. Ghulam Fatima. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Additional Settlement Commissioner, and Settlement Commissioner concurrently ruled that the land allotment obtained on the basis of the common claim enured for the benefit of all legal heirs in their proportionate shares. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the entitlement to inheritance was undisputed, the allotment made on the basis of a common claim must benefit all heirs. The Court further held that even if the Deputy Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to direct the handing over of produce shares, discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 would not be exercised to foster injustice or allow petitioners to usurp the lawful shares of others.
Questions settled- Does an allotment of land made on the basis of a common refugee claim enure for the benefit of all legal heirs of the deceased right-holder?
- Will the High Court exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to interfere with a just and fair order that prevents the usurpation of shares by co-heirs?
- Can a writ be issued in aid of injustice to protect petitioners in retaining benefits to which they are not entitled under the law?
- DEPUTY DIRECTOR (CONCILIATION), LABOUR WELFARE vs RAVI RAYON1976 PLC 135(2) · Labour Court · 1974-09-18Read full judgment →
- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARACHI vs UMER AND 23 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 614 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARACHI vs UMER AND 23 Other1976 PLD Karachi 614 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
- DELHI JAMIATUL QURAISH vs KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KARACHI1976 PLD Karachi 865 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-05Read full judgment →
- DECO LTD., LAHORE vs ABDUL WAHEED1976 PLC 878 · Labour Court · 1975-06-30Read full judgment →
- DARAB SHAH B. DALAL vs MESSRS PREMIER BANK LTD., KARACHI1976 SCMR 67 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that granted the petitioner leave to defend a suit filed by the respondent-Bank, subject to the condition of furnishing a Bank Guarantee. The core legal question was whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 158 of the Limitation Act, 1908, thereby precluding a summary trial under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner argued that the suit was filed beyond the prescribed three-year period. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the provisions of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908, must be read in conjunction with Article 158. The Court found that two written acknowledgments by the petitioner effectively extended the limitation period, as the sum became payable within three years of the last acknowledgment. Consequently, the requirements for a summary trial were satisfied. The Court dismissed the petition, clarifying that the limitation period was properly calculated based on the statutory acknowledgments, and expressly disapproved of the legal position taken in Fine Textiles Mills, Karachi v. Haji Umar.
Questions settled- Can a suit be tried summarily under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if it is filed beyond the limitation period prescribed in Article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does a written acknowledgment of debt extend the limitation period for a summary suit under the Limitation Act 1908?
- Must Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908 be read in conjunction with Article 158 of the same Act when determining the limitation period for a summary suit?
- DAMODAR HANSRAJ vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD A, CUTTACK1976 PTD 283 · Orissa High Court · 1970-03-23Read full judgment →
- DAL CHAND CHITTAR MAL vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U. P.1976 PTD 53 · Allahabad High Court · 1969-10-30Read full judgment →
- DAILY JANG vs FARIGH BOKHARI1976 PLC 246 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-11-24Read full judgment →
- Da. GHULAM QADIR vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 922 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-02Read full judgment →
- CROWN BUS SERVICE LTD. vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND 2 OTHERS1976 PTD 321 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-05Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 21976 PLD Karachi 732 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-25Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs KHALIQ-UZ-ZAMAN1976 PLC 779 · Labour Court · 1975-01-12Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs FATEH MUHAMMAD1976 PLC 790 · Labour Court · 1975-01-07Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD. JARANWALA vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1976 PLC 803 · Labour Court · 1975-02-04Read full judgment →
- COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FUNDS AND PROJECTS THROUGH ns PROJECT1976 PLD Karachi 808 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from an application filed by an unregistered partnership firm under Section 4 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 seeking the fixation of fair rent. The landlord contested the application, arguing that the proceedings were barred under Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act 1932 because the firm was unregistered. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, but the District Judge reversed this decision on appeal. The High Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, holding that the bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act 1932 applies only to suits in civil courts to enforce contractual rights. The Court observed that a Rent Controller is a quasi-judicial authority and not a civil court, and that the right to seek fair rent is a statutory right under Section 4 of the Ordinance, not a contractual one. Additionally, the Court ruled that an unregistered firm falls within the definition of a 'tenant' under Section 2(i) of the Ordinance, read with the General Clauses Act, and is therefore competent to maintain such an application.
Questions settled- Does the bar under Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act 1932 apply to proceedings before a Rent Controller?
- Is a Rent Controller considered a civil court for the purposes of applying the provisions of the Partnership Act 1932?
- Does an application for the fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 constitute the enforcement of a right arising from a contract?
- Can an unregistered partnership firm maintain an application for the fixation of fair rent as a 'tenant' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, HAZARA CIRCLE AND 2 OTHERS vs Haji LAL KHAN1976 PLD Peshawar 118 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-07-07Read full judgment →
- CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, HAZARA CIRCLE AND 2 Other vs Haji LAL KHAN1976 PLD Peshawar 118 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-07-07Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs MESSRS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI1976 PLD Karachi 1025 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-19Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs MESSRS HABIB BANK (OVERSEAS) LTD.1976 PLD Karachi 358 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-06Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TEX, WEST BENGAL-I vs BIRLA COTTON SPINNING1976 PTD 390 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL-I vs BENGAL RIVER SERVICE1976 PTD 102 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL II vs UKHARA ESTATE1976 PTD 299 · Calcutta High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P. vs HIRDEY NA RAIN YOGENDRA1976 PTD 367 · Allahabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U. P. vs KAILASH MOTORS1976 PTD 458 · Allahabad High Court · 1970-11-16Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNJAB vs AMBALA CANTT. ELECTRIC1976 PTD 428 · Punjab and Haryana High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, POONA vs H. G. DATE1976 PTD 273 · Bombay High Court · 1970-02-25Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PATIALA vs HARGOPAL BHALLA & SONS1976 PTD 450 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1970-11-09Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs JAGADEESCHANDRAN &1976 PTD 44 · Madras High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LUCKNOW vs B. R. SONS (P.) LTD. , .1976 PTD 288 · Allahabad High Court · 1970-12-09Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE vs MESSRS ANWAR &1976 PTD 9 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE vs MESSHS ANWAR &1976 PLD Lahore 545 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-19Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE vs UMAR SAIGOL1976 PTD 76 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-15Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE vs NASIM HASSAN, ADVOCATE1976 PTD 336 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-08Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUJARAT II vs R. M. AMIN1976 PTD 410 · Gujarat High Court · 1970-10-15Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI vs BHANNA MAL & CO. (P.) LTD. ,1976 PTD 369 · Delhi High Court · 1971-02-04Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY vs CHUNILAL V. MEHTA &1976 PTD 113 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ASSAM vs TEZPUR AUTOMOBILE , .1976 PTD 150 · Assam High Court · 1969-03-05Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH vs TAJ MAHAL HOTEL , . (1976 PTD 105 · Supreme Court of India · 1971-08-11Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD vs TIKYOMAL JASANMAL1976 PTD 292 · Gujarat High Court · 1970-10-14Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs R. SHANTILAL & Co.1976 PTD 426 · Calcutta High Court · 1970-12-09Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs MESSRS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI1976 PTD 237 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This tax reference case addresses whether a commercial bank is entitled to set off bad debts against its profits under section 10(2)(xi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, when utilizing a specific method of account-keeping prescribed by the Central Board of Revenue. The Income-tax Officer had disallowed the respondent bank's claims for bad debts across multiple assessment years, contending that maintaining a provision account and reversing entries upon unexpected recoveries rendered the write-off provisional rather than final. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reversed this decision and allowed the claims. Upon a reference to the Sindh High Court, the Court held that the system of maintaining accounts in accordance with the Central Board of Revenue circular is proper, and the reversal of entries upon a subsequent windfall or recovery does not invalidate the initial write-off of a bad debt as irrecoverable. The Court laid down that a bank's method of accounting following official departmental guidelines cannot be penalized, and subsequent unexpected recoveries of written-off debts must properly be accounted for as profits in the year of realization rather than retroactively invalidating the deduction.
Questions settled- Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim of an assessee on account of alleged bad debts was admissible within the meaning of section 10(2)(xi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, when accounts were maintained through a provision account system?
- Whether a bank's claim for bad debts can be rejected merely because its system of accounts permits reversing entries upon the unexpected recovery of a debt?
- Can the High Court resettle questions referred under section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to bring out the real controversies between the parties?
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs MESSRS IMAM BUX ALLAH DEWAYA, LEIAH1976 PLD Lahore 1037 · Lahore High Court · 1975-09-04Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs MESSRS IMAM BAKHSH ALLAH DEWAYA, LEIAH ,1976 PTD 199 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- COLONY SARHAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD., NOWSHEHRA vs SECRETARYCUMDIRECTOR LABOUR, DIRECTORATE OF LABOUR, N.W. F. P., PESHAWAR AND 3 OTHERS1976 PLD Peshawar 114 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-04-07Read full judgment →
- COLONY SARHAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD., NOWSHEHRA vs SECRETARY CUM1976 PLD Peshawar 114 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-04-07Read full judgment →
- COLONY SARHAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD. NOWSHEHRA vs SECRETARY-CUM-1976 PLC 612 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-04-07Read full judgment →
- COLONY SARHAD TEXTILE MILLS Lrd., RAWALPINDI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND Other1976 PLD Supreme Court 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition challenging a demand for short-levied central excise duty on textile goods manufactured by the appellant. The core legal questions involved the interpretation of Item 15-A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 and its 6th Explanation regarding the rounding off of yarn counts, and whether the expression 'wherever necessary' conferred discretion on excise authorities to waive the enhanced duty. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the 6th Explanation is a substantive complementary provision for calculating average yarn count rather than a mere explanatory note, and that the rule of rounding off must be applied automatically when fractions meet the threshold to change category rather than at the arbitrary discretion of authorities. The key principle laid down is that statutory provisions prescribing formulas for classification and taxation must be read together as complementary parts of the legislative scheme, and phrases such as 'wherever necessary' in a calculation rule do not grant arbitrary dispensing power.
Questions settled- Whether the 6th Explanation to Item 15-A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 is a substantive complementary provision for calculating the average count of yarn or a mere explanation?
- Does the expression 'wherever necessary' in the 6th Explanation to Item 15-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 confer a discretionary power on excise authorities to waive the application of the rounding off rule?
- How is the average count of yarn to be determined for the classification of textile fabrics under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944?
- COFCOT TEXTILE LTD., HYDERABAD vs MAZDOOR UNION1976 PLC 80 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-12-10Read full judgment →
- CHUNI LAL vs DITTOO AND 2 Other1976 PLD Lahore 139 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two criminal miscellaneous applications seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Sessions Judge, Lahore, in a case involving charges under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the Sessions Judge exercised proper judicial discretion in granting bail to the respondents, who were alleged members of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, despite the vicarious liability provisions of section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the Sessions Judge erred by prematurely determining the degree of culpability of the accused, thereby prejudicing the prosecution's case regarding vicarious liability. The Court emphasized that in non-bailable capital offences, bail discretion must be exercised with extreme care and circumspection, particularly where reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused were members of an unlawful assembly. Consequently, the Court accepted the petitions, cancelled the bail of the respondents, and ordered them into custody, while clarifying that this decision does not preclude future bail applications after material evidence is recorded.
Questions settled- Whether the vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be determined at the bail stage?
- Does the grant of bail to an accused charged under section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require the exercise of judicial discretion with special care and circumspection?
- Can bail be cancelled if the lower court prematurely determines the culpability of the accused in a capital case?
- Is a member of an unlawful assembly liable for an offence committed by another member if the result was known to be likely?
- CHOOHAR AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 623 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-24Read full judgment →
- CHIRAGH DIN ETC. vs TARIQ JAFFRY1976 SCMR 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from the cancellation of excess land allotments made to displaced persons under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The petitioners challenged the cancellation order on grounds of procedural unfairness, alleging they were not served with notices, and questioned the legal authority of the Settlement Commissioner to cancel allotments under Section 11 of the Act. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and determined that the petitioners, or their authorized representatives, had appeared during the initial inquiry, thereby satisfying the requirements of natural justice. Regarding the legal conflict concerning the applicability of Section 11 to lands allotted under the Rehabilitation Scheme, the Court declined to adjudicate, finding it unnecessary for the disposal of the present matter. Ultimately, the Court upheld the cancellation of the excess allotments, noting the absence of fraud or misrepresentation. However, it granted the petitioners liberty to approach the Settlement Authorities to request retention of the excess land upon payment of its market value, considering their long-standing possession and development of the property.
Questions settled- Does the cancellation of land allotments under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, require personal service of notice on all heirs if representatives are present?
- Can a court decline to resolve a conflict in High Court decisions if the issue is not essential for the disposal of the specific case?
- Are allottees of excess land entitled to retain such land upon payment of market value if no fraud or misrepresentation was involved?
- CHIRAGH DIN AND 4 Others vs Mst. JANAT BIBI AND 4 Other1976 SCMR 399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This miscellaneous application seeks the restoration of a petition for special leave to appeal which was previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question concerns whether the sudden illness of the counsel and Advocate-on-Record constitutes sufficient cause for restoration when no prior arrangement was made to inform the court, and whether the divisibility of an evacuee property is amenable to constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the illness of the Advocate-on-Record and counsel, unaccompanied by timely notification to the court or diligence on the part of the petitioners, does not absolve them of the obligation to appear, and furthermore, the divisibility of an evacuee house for transfer purposes is not open to question in the High Court under writ jurisdiction. The key principles laid down are that parties and their authorized agents must ensure proper representation, and administrative decisions regarding the divisibility of evacuee properties under settlement laws are generally immune from constitutional review.
Questions settled- Does the sudden illness of an Advocate-on-Record without making arrangements to inform the court constitute sufficient ground to restore a petition dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Is the divisibility of an evacuee house for the purpose of its transfer open to question in the High Court in its writ jurisdiction?
- CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE vs COMMISSIONER1976 PTD 56 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This reference application under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 addresses seventeen consolidated tax assessment matters concerning the Thal Development Authority. The core legal questions involve the validity of assessment notices, limitation periods, whether the Thal Development Authority constitutes a "local authority" under section 4(3)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the taxability of its receipts. The Lahore High Court held that the Thal Development Authority, having its own local fund, executing development schemes, and exercising local self-government functions, qualifies as a "local authority" under section 3(28) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and section 4(3)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, distinguishing it from corporate companies. The court concluded that its income is exempt to the extent provided by law, answering the primary question in the negative and ruling on limitation and procedural aspects accordingly.
Questions settled- Whether the Thal Development Authority is a local authority within the meaning of section 4(3)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- Whether income-tax can legally be charged in respect of receipts of the Thal Development Authority?
- Whether assessment proceedings were initiated and completed during the statutory period of limitation under the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- Whether the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 184(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 over tax disputes involving a dissolved statutory authority represented by an administrator?
- CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE vs COMMISSIONER1976 PLD Lahore 258 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns seventeen reference applications under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, arising from an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the tax status of the Thal Development Authority (TDA). The core legal question was whether the TDA constituted a 'local authority' under Section 4(3)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, thereby exempting its income from taxation. The Court held that the TDA, established under the Thal Development Act, 1949, possessed the characteristics of a local authority, including the power to levy taxes, manage a local fund, and exercise functions of local self-government within its jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court ruled that the TDA was a 'local authority' and not merely a 'company' as the Tribunal had erroneously concluded. The principle laid down is that a body corporate's status as a 'company' under the Income-tax Act does not preclude it from simultaneously being a 'local authority' if it meets the statutory criteria of managing a local fund and exercising local self-government functions, and that the definition of 'local authority' in the General Clauses Act, 1897, governs such interpretation.
Questions settled- Is the Thal Development Authority a 'local authority' within the meaning of Section 4(3)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
- Does the status of a body corporate under the Income-tax Act, 1922, preclude it from being classified as a 'local authority'?
- Can an Administrator appointed under the Thal Development Act, 1949, be considered the same entity as the Provincial Government for the purposes of Article 184(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF WAQFS, WEST PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT, LAHORE vs Sain ABDUL HAQ1976 PLD Karachi 845 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- CHIBHAR MACHI vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 660 · Sindh High Court · 1973-04-06Read full judgment →
- CHHAPPAR KHAN AND Another vs THE CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, WESTPLD 1976. Karachi 747 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- CHAWLA CALICO PRINTING WORKS vs WORKERS' UNION1976 PLC 26 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-12-15Read full judgment →
- Chaudhry GHULAM HABIB vs MUHAMMAD DIN AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Supreme Court 495 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The dispute concerns the transfer of an evacuee building in Lahore between two claimant displaced persons. The Chief Settlement Commissioner ordered that the appellant be 'associated' in the transfer of the property with the respondent. The High Court, interpreting 'associated' in its technical sense under Settlement Scheme No. I, set aside this order, holding that joint transfer was impermissible absent joint allotment. The Supreme Court, on appeal, held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner used 'associated' in its ordinary sense, intending a division of the property rather than a technical association. However, the Court found the appellant ineligible for transfer because he was not in personal possession of the premises and could not rely on his father-in-law's possession. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's decision to transfer the entire property to the respondent and remanded the case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision, emphasizing that the question of property divisibility is a factual matter to be determined by the authorities.
Questions settled- Does the term 'associated' in an order by the Chief Settlement Commissioner necessarily imply the technical meaning defined under Settlement Laws?
- Can a claimant for an evacuee property rely on the possession of a relative to establish eligibility for transfer?
- Is the Chief Settlement Commissioner bound by the findings of subordinate authorities regarding the indivisibility of an evacuee property?
- CHAUDHRY & CO. AND OTHERS vs ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, MIRPUR AND mums1976 PLD Azad J & K 35 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN. WAPDA AND 2 Other vs NAZIR AHMAD1976 PLC 823 · Labour Court · 1975-07-03Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE AND 31976 PLC 740 · Lahore High Court · 1975-09-05Read full judgment →
- Ch. ZAHOOR ELAHI vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 988 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-16Read full judgment →
- Ch. NOOR MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN1976 PLD Lahore 1061 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-12Read full judgment →