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.
- Ch. NAZAR HUSSAIN vs N.W. F. PROVINCE AND OTHERS1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 62 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1975-08-10Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs MUMTAZ ALI AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Quetta 53 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-04-29Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1976 SCMR 11 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition and subsequent Letters Patent Appeal concerning the transfer of a residential property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The core legal question was whether the property in dispute comprised three separate houses or a single residential unit divided into two parts, and whether the appellant, a non-claimant in possession of a portion, was entitled to its transfer. The Supreme Court held that the record established the property was structurally a single residential unit and not three separate houses, and therefore the settlement authorities rightly transferred it to claimant displaced persons while excluding the non-claimant appellant. The Court laid down that the question of divisibility and classification of a property by settlement authorities, being a factual determination supported by municipal and taxation records, does not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether a property constitutes a single residential unit or multiple houses for the purpose of transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act?
- Is the decision of settlement authorities regarding the divisibility of a property open to review in writ jurisdiction?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ANWAR SAMMA ETC. vs THE STATE1976 SC M R168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' application for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 148, 365, and 506/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The High Court had refused bail after taking the view that the allegations and medical report disclosed offences under sections 307 and 367 of the Pakistan Penal Code, which fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The core legal question was whether the facts and medical evidence prima facie established offences under sections 307 and 367 to warrant the denial of bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the material on record did not prima facie disclose a clear case under section 307 or 367, and that the High Court erred in importing a new offence not alleged in the F.I.R. The Court laid down that bail should not be refused based on conjectured offences not made out by the initial allegations, and considering the lack of risk of abscondence or tampering with evidence, converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail to the petitioners.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can import a new offence not charged in the F.I.R. to deny bail?
- Do fractures caused by kicks and blows inherently constitute an offence under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the purpose of bail?
- Whether mere abduction without specific statutory intent satisfies the ingredients of section 367 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ANWAR SAMMA AND Another vs THE STATE1976 SCMR 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the Lahore High Court's order directing the petitioners to approach the Sessions Court first for pre-arrest bail instead of directly entertaining their application under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the High Court could arbitrarily insist on the exhaustion of remedies before the Sessions Court when exercising its concurrent jurisdiction for pre-arrest bail, despite the absence of an invariable or uniform practice. The Supreme Court held that while there is no statutory bar or universal rule requiring a party to first approach the Sessions Court, where the High Court does not follow a uniform practice, it cannot exercise its discretion arbitrarily based on whims. Given the special circumstances—including reasonable apprehensions of unfairness due to sensationalized newspaper reports involving high personalities—the High Court ought to have exercised its concurrent jurisdiction on merits. The appeal was allowed, and the matter remanded to the High Court for disposal on merits, extending interim bail in the interim.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can arbitrarily refuse to exercise its concurrent jurisdiction for pre-arrest bail by insisting on the exhaustion of remedies before the Sessions Court?
- Is there any statutory bar to an applicant moving the High Court directly for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Whether the High Court must follow a uniform and consistent practice when requiring litigants to approach the Sessions Court in the first instance for bail?
- Ch. MASOOD AHMAD vs EXCISE & TAXATION DEPARTMENT1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 27 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-09-24Read full judgment →
- Ch. KHURSHID AHMAD CHAUHAN vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 342 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-05Read full judgment →
- Ch. HASHMAT ALI THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM AND Another1976 SCMR 51 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-07-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal petitions directed against an order of the Lahore High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the respondent in a murder case. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting pre-arrest bail in a murder case where the accused is directly named in the first information report with a specific role, eyewitnesses support the charge, medical evidence corroborates multiple shots, and previous litigation exists between the parties. The Supreme Court converted the complainant's petition into an appeal and held that previous litigation is a double-edged weapon insufficient to justify pre-arrest bail, and that the plea of alibi must be examined by the trial court. The Court ruled that reasonable grounds existed to believe the respondent was guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life, making pre-arrest bail unwarranted. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and cancelled the bail granted to the respondent. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail should not be granted in heinous offences like murder when the accused is named in the FIR with supporting eyewitness and medical evidence, and a plea of alibi and prior enmity alone do not furnish sufficient grounds for extraordinary relief.
Questions settled- Whether previous litigation and enmity between parties constitute sufficient ground for the grant of pre-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Can pre-arrest bail be sustained when an accused is directly named in the first information report with a specific role supported by eyewitness and medical evidence?
- Should a plea of alibi be examined by the investigating authorities or the trial court in the first instance before granting pre-arrest bail?
- Ch. HALEEM AHMAD vs THE STATE AND OTHERS1976 P Cr. L J 709 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-23Read full judgment →
- CENTRAL INSURANCE Co. vs KHYBER TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 540 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-17Read full judgment →
- CENTRAL INSURANCE Co. vs KHYBER TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND Other1976 PLD Karachi 540 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-17Read full judgment →
- CARLUS LUCH CALEAGNO AND ANOTHI3R Convict vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 643 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-19Read full judgment →
- CARE TAKERS WELFARE UNION vs MESSRS AHMED EBRAHIM AGENCY LTD., KARACHI1976 PLC 315 · Labour Court · 1976-02-16Read full judgment →
- CAPITAL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs LABOUR UNION1976 PLC 533 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-06-24Read full judgment →
- CAPITAL DEVELOPVIENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD vs MUHAMMAD AYUB1976 PLC 924 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-09-17Read full judgment →
- CALTEX OIL (PAKISTAN) LTD. vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other1976 SCMR 99 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Caltex Oil (Pakistan) Ltd., challenged a notice issued by the Monopoly Control Authority under Section 21 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, which required the production of certain information. The petitioner contested the validity of this notice in the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, alleging that the action was ultra vires and violated principles of natural justice, specifically regarding the requirement for personal attendance and the failure to provide reasons for the request. The High Court rejected the petitioner's application for a stay of the notice. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision. The Court held that the notice did not mandate personal appearance, as information could be supplied in writing, and found no violation of natural justice, as the authority was not legally obligated to provide reasons for seeking the information. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court noting that the petitioner could approach the High Court for an early hearing of the main Constitution petition.
Questions settled- Does a notice issued under Section 21 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, necessarily require the personal appearance of the recipient?
- Is the Monopoly Control Authority legally obligated to provide reasons for requesting information under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970?
- CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION vs COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH1976 PTD 381 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- C. A. No. 175 Of 1970 PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND Another THE1976 PLD Supreme Court 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan deals with civil appeals concerning the legality of the transfer of municipal officers from the Lahore Municipal Corporation to district councils in other districts. The respondents challenged their transfers, arguing they were not liable to be transferred outside the territorial limits of the Corporation and that the rules enabling such transfers were ultra vires. A Division Bench of the High Court declared the transfers without lawful authority on the grounds that the rules expanded the definition of 'local council' beyond the parent statutes and that the transfers were not made by the competent authority. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that the integration of the local councils service and municipal committees through statutory provisions and rules was valid, intended to establish a common cadre for better administration, and should be construed liberally to effectuate the legislative intent. The Court concluded that the transfers were competently made by the Provincial Government as the prescribed authority. Consequently, the appeals were accepted and the High Court's writs were recalled.
Questions settled- Whether rules extending the definition of local councils to include municipal committees are ultra vires the parent statute?
- Can employees of a municipal corporation be transferred to posts outside the territorial limits of the corporation under an integrated service cadre?
- Whether amendments to an incorporated statute apply to the incorporating statute through mutatis mutandis application?
- How should remedial and empowering statutory provisions be construed with respect to legislative intent?
- BURMAHSHELL OIL STORAGE & DISTRIBUTING Co. (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI vs EXCISE & TAXATION OFFICER, _L_ DIVISION, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 1238 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-18Read full judgment →
- BURMAH-SHELL OIL STORAGE & DISTRIBUTING Co. (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI1976 PLD Karachi 1238 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-18Read full judgment →
- BROOKE BOND PAKISTAN LTD, LAHORE vs SHAH MUHAMMAD1976 PLC 427 · Labour Court · 1975-09-21Read full judgment →
- BROOKE BOND (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES' UNION (PUNJAB), LAHORE1976 PLC 331 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-12-18Read full judgment →
- BOX & CARTON WORKS vs MAZDOOR UNION1976 PLC 626 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-05-10Read full judgment →
- Board of Revenue MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN vs AZAM KHAN AND OTHERS1976 PLD Revenue 72 · Board of Revenue · 1975-12-03Read full judgment →
- Board of Revenue MIRAN vs Malik GHULAM HAIDER1976 PLD Revenue 73 · Board of Revenue · 1976-01-02Read full judgment →
- Board of Revenue FAZAL MUHAMMAD AND S OTHERS vs FAZAL MUHAMMAD1976 PLD Revenue 65 · Board of Revenue · 1975-11-04Read full judgment →
- BISHESHWAR LAL vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, GONDA1976 PTD 45 · Allahabad High Court · 1969-09-15Read full judgment →
- BIRLA JUTE MANUFACTURING CO. vs COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, WEST1976 PTD 372 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
- BEGUM WAZIR AHMAD INDUSTRIAL HOME vs Mst. NIAZ BEGUM (DECEASED) (REPRESENTED BY NISAR AHMED AND 6 Other) AND 3 Other1976 PLD Supreme Court 214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that set aside a Settlement Commissioner's order transferring disputed evacuee property to the appellant, an Industrial Home. The core legal questions concerned whether the Settlement Commissioner acted within his jurisdiction and whether the High Court could interfere with his findings of fact under its constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner, as a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction, had correctly evaluated the evidence regarding the appellant's application for transfer. The Court ruled that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own findings for those of the Settlement Commissioner, as there was no jurisdictional defect or failure to follow judicial procedure. Furthermore, the Court clarified that general instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under the Settlement Scheme do not constitute delegated legislation that precludes the statutory right of revision under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the order of the Settlement Commissioner, affirming that the appellant was the rightful transferee.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with findings of fact made by a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction under its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Do general instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under a Settlement Scheme constitute delegated legislation that bars statutory revision?
- Is a Deputy Settlement Commissioner required to refer the transfer of converted property to the Additional Settlement Commissioner?
- Does an order passed by a subordinate officer in accordance with general instructions from the Chief Settlement Commissioner attract the incidents of appeal and revision under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- BEG MOHAMMAD vs Mst. IQBAL BEGUM AND 4 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 888 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-11Read full judgment →
- BEG MOHAMMAD vs MST. IQBAL BEGUM AND 4 Other1976 PLD Karachi 888 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-11Read full judgment →
- BEACH LUXURY HOTEL LTD. vs FIRST SIND LABOUR COURT, RARACHI AND 81976 PLC 432 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-17Read full judgment →
- BEACH LUXURY HOTEL LTD. vs FIRST SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND 81976 PLD Karachi 787 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-17Read full judgment →
- BAZ MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs Tim MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BALUCHISTAN AT QUETTA AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Quetta 28 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-03-12Read full judgment →
- BAZ MUHAMMAD AND 2 Other vs THE MEMBER, BOARD OP REVENUE, BALUCHISTAN AT QUETTA AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Quetta 28 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-03-12Read full judgment →
- BASHIR vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1162 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-22Read full judgment →
- BASHIR HUSSAIN AND Another vs Sh. MUHAMMAD SAEED AND 2PLD 1976 Lahore 1095 . · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by a landlord against tenants under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, seeking possession for reconstruction to extend a contiguous building occupied by a bank. The Rent Controller and the District Judge concurrently allowed the ejectment. The core legal question was whether an application for reconstruction is bona fide when the landlord has already committed the property to a third party, thereby rendering the statutory right of the tenant to re-occupy the reconstructed premises under section 13(5-B) impossible. The Court held that the ejectment application was incompetent. It reasoned that reconstruction must be bona fide, and a plan designed to circumvent the tenant's statutory right to re-entry under section 13(5-B) cannot be considered bona fide. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while findings of fact regarding bona fide requirement are generally not disturbed in second appeal, the legal interpretation of whether specific facts constitute a bona fide requirement under the Ordinance is a question of law. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower orders and dismissed the ejectment application.
Questions settled- Whether an application for ejectment for reconstruction is bona fide if the landlord has already committed the property to a third party?
- Can a tenant be evicted for reconstruction if the landlord's plan effectively denies the tenant's statutory right to re-occupy the premises under section 13(5-B)?
- Is the question of whether a reconstruction plan constitutes a bona fide requirement a question of law or a question of fact?
- Can a landlord seek ejectment for personal use for a third party such as a bank under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- BASHIR AND ANOTHER Convict vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-15Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs KH ALID SIZING & POWERLOOMS INDUSTRIES, LYALLPUR1976 PLC 891(2) · Labour Court · 1975-01-21Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs Mst. REHANA UMAR1976 SCMR 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a custody (hizanat) dispute over a minor girl aged about 11 years between her natural father and her mother, later involving her maternal grandparents. The appellant father applied for custody under the Guardians and Wards Act after the mother left the matrimonial home. The Guardian Judge initially awarded custody to the father due to the mother's remarriage to a stranger. On appeal, the High Court set aside this order, granting custody to the maternal grandmother based on preferential right under Muslim Law until puberty and the welfare of the minor. Leave was granted to examine whether the High Court erred by not consulting the wishes of the minor who had attained the age of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly concluded that the welfare of the minor is best served by remaining with her maternal grandparents for the time being, while modifying the order to ensure visitation rights and temporary holiday custody for the father. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with modifications.
Questions settled- Whether the custody of a minor should be entrusted to the maternal grandmother when the mother has remarried a person not prohibited within the degrees of consanguinity?
- Does the welfare of the minor override the technical right of hizanat under Muslim Law?
- Can visitation rights and temporary custody be granted to the natural father during vacations while the primary custody remains with the maternal grandparents?
- BASHIR AHMAD BILOUR vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, PESHAWAR THROUGH ITS1976 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-10-24Read full judgment →
- BASHARAT MAHMOODConvict vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-01Read full judgment →
- BASH1R alias MATTO vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 652 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-08Read full judgment →
- BAS H IR HUSSAIN vs SADIQ HUSSAIN SHAH alias SADIQ AND ANOTHER1976 P Cr. L 1609 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-10Read full judgment →
- BARKAT ALI vs The STATE1976 SCMR 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of one Nizam Din by a gunshot at his shop. The core legal question centered on whether material discrepancies in the ocular testimony, inconsistencies with the medical evidence regarding the firing distance, and the non-examination of a key witness were sufficient to create reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the testimony of an independent eyewitness remained credible, minor discrepancies did not shake the core prosecution case, and the medical evidence supported the ocular account of the firing distance. The key principle laid down is that the withholding of a corroborative witness does not automatically dismantle a credible eyewitness account supported by corroborative physical evidence, and delay in execution alone is not a ground for the judiciary to commute a lawful death sentence.
Questions settled- Whether discrepancies between medical evidence and ocular testimony are sufficient to discredit an otherwise reliable eyewitness account?
- Does the non-examination of a corroborative witness by the prosecution automatically demolish the prosecution's case?
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a lawful sentence of death solely on the ground of delay in the execution of the sentence?
- BARKAT ALI KHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUNJAB EDUCATION1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 2 · Punjab Appellate Tribunal · 1974-10-13Read full judgment →
- BAQA MUHAMMAD vs PUNJAB PROVINCE1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 1(2) · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- BANGAH vs THE STATE1976 PLD Supreme Court 760 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of one Murad, following the acquittal of his three co-accused. The core legal question was whether the appellant's conviction, based on ocular evidence, was sustainable given that the trial court had acquitted his co-accused on the same evidence, and whether the alleged corroborative evidence—the appellant's arrest at the spot and the recovery of a blood-stained hatchet—was reliable. The Supreme Court, by a majority, dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the ocular evidence was consistent and trustworthy, and the recovery of the blood-stained hatchet, corroborated by chemical analysis, provided sufficient independent evidence to sustain the conviction. The Court clarified that the acquittal of co-accused does not automatically invalidate the conviction of the remaining accused if the evidence against them is distinct and reliable. The principle established is that while tainted evidence requires careful scrutiny, the court may sift the grain from the chaff to uphold a conviction where the evidence against a specific accused is independently corroborated and free from blemish.
Questions settled- Can the conviction of an accused be sustained based on ocular evidence when the co-accused have been acquitted on the same evidence?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused automatically render the ocular evidence unreliable against the remaining accused?
- Is the recovery of a weapon and the arrest of an accused at the scene sufficient to corroborate ocular testimony in a murder case?
- BAKHSHU vs Tire STATE1976 P Cr. L J 735 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-19Read full judgment →
- BAHAWALPUR TEXTILE MILLS MAZDOOR UNION vs REGISTRAR TRADE UNIONS, MULTAN1976 PLC 158 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-02-07Read full judgment →
- BAHAWALPUR TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION vs REGISTAR, TRADE UNIONS, MULTAN1976 PLC 119 · Labour Court · 1974-10-24Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR KHAN vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1283 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the forfeiture of a surety bond by the District Magistrate, Mianwali, which had been reduced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 3,000. The petitioner, who stood surety for his son, contended that the bail bond was legally defective under Section 499, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, because it failed to specify the exact time and place for the accused's appearance. The Court examined whether specifying the date of hearing and the relevant court, including potential transferee courts, satisfied the statutory requirements. The Court held that the bail bond was valid, ruling that specifying the date of hearing and the court is sufficient compliance with Section 499, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as it is presumed the accused must attend during court hours. The Court rejected the necessity of specifying an exact hour. Furthermore, exercising judicial discretion regarding the quantum of forfeiture, the Court reduced the penalty to Rs. 1,000, considering the petitioner’s financial hardship and the absence of evidence suggesting connivance in the accused's non-appearance.
Questions settled- Does a bail bond require the specification of an exact hour of appearance to be valid under Section 499, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a bail bond valid if it requires the accused to appear on every date of hearing before the trial court or any court to which the case is transferred?
- What factors should a court consider when determining the amount of penalty to be forfeited from a surety upon the accused's failure to appear?
- BAGGA AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 956 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-16Read full judgment →
- BADRUDDIN HASAN FAROOQUI THROUGH HIS 5 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES vs MANGHI INDUSTRIAL HOME1976 PLD Karachi 620 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an eviction application filed by the landlord against the respondent-tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The landlord sought possession on grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement for his family. While the Rent Controller granted the application based on personal need, the first appellate authority reversed this decision, questioning the landlord's bona fides and noting a failure to plead the absence of other residential properties. The High Court held that a tentative rent order cannot serve as proof of default, which requires independent evidence. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the statutory requirement regarding the non-occupation of other suitable residential buildings is a matter of proof rather than a mandatory pleading requirement. The Court emphasized that the statute prohibits the occupation of other suitable premises, not merely the ownership of property. Consequently, the Court found the personal bona fide need established, set aside the appellate order, and restored the eviction decree, affirming that a prior demand for increased rent does not negate a proven bona fide requirement.
Questions settled- Can a tentative rent order be used as conclusive proof of default in rent payment?
- Is a landlord required to specifically plead in the rent application that they do not occupy another suitable residential building?
- Does a prior demand for increased rent invalidate a landlord's claim of personal bona fide requirement?
- What is the distinction between 'having' a house and 'occupying' a residential building under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- BABOO KHAN ETC vs KHALIL AHMED ETC.1976 PLD Lahore 179 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-16Read full judgment →
- BABAR SHAH Alias IRSHAD MAHMUD ARSHAD HUSSAIN SHAH AND 2 Others vs THE STATE TILE STATE1976 SCMR 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions arise out of the same incident where the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to various terms of rigorous imprisonment under sections 148 and 326/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and one of the petitioners under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal questions involved the sustainability of convictions for grievous hurt without attributing a specific individual blow, constructive liability under section 149, and the plea of right of self-defence. The Supreme Court held that the convictions were well-founded given the eyewitness and medical evidence, the constructive liability under section 326/149 justified the conviction despite lack of specific attribution for the grievous injury, and the plea of self-defence was rightly rejected. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, affirming the principles of constructive criminal liability and evaluation of self-defence pleas.
Questions settled- Whether conviction for grievous hurt is sustainable when constructive liability under section 326/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code is applied?
- Can a plea of right of self-defence be raised for the first time before the High Court when it was not taken before the trial Court?
- Whether the recovery of a weapon and eyewitness testimony sufficiently sustain a conviction under the Arms Ordinance?
- AZIZUR RAHMAN AND ANOTHER vs ATAI KHAN (REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS)1976 PLD Peshawar 60 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-01-14Read full judgment →
- AZIZUR RAHMAN AND Another vs ATAI KHAN (REPRESENTED BY His HEIRS) AND 6 Other1976 PLD Peshawar 60 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-01-14Read full judgment →
- AZIZ MASEEH vs THE STATE1976 PLD Lahore 53 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 1,200 by a supervisor at an Agricultural Development Corporation depot. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the misappropriation of public funds and whether procedural irregularities, specifically an investigation by a Sub-Inspector without a magistrate's order and potential issues with the prosecution sanction, vitiated the trial. The Lahore High Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the funds belonged to the Corporation or were misappropriated, as the money was an advance payment for fertilizer held in trust pending a private dispute resolution. The Court established that an investigation conducted by an officer below the rank of Inspector without a magistrate's order constitutes a curable irregularity under Section 537, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rather than a fatal defect. Additionally, a conviction for criminal breach of trust requires clear proof that the funds were public property and were dishonestly misappropriated, which was not demonstrated in this instance.
Questions settled- Does an investigation conducted by a police officer below the rank of Inspector without a magistrate's order vitiate a trial?
- Is the failure to obtain a valid sanction for prosecution a fatal defect in a criminal trial?
- Can a conviction for criminal breach of trust be sustained when the funds in question are not proven to be public property?
- AZIZ KHAN vs AJAB KHAN AND 3 Other1976 SCMR 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- AZHAR HUSSAIN vs Tim STATE1976 P Cr. L J 296 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-13Read full judgment →
- AYUB SHAH AND ANOTHER vs TARBELA JOINT VENTURE, HAZARA1976 PLC 938 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-08-15Read full judgment →
- AYUB KHAN AND Another vs FAZAL HAQ AND Other1976 PLD Supreme Court 422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court arose from eviction proceedings initiated under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The Rent Controller proceeded ex parte against the tenant-appellants after the process server effected service by affixation without a prior explicit order from the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller subsequently passed an ex parte eviction order and dismissed the appellants' application to set it aside. The High Court dismissed the appellants' second appeal and Letters Patent Appeal, holding that the Rent Controller was not a court strictly bound by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the appeal. It held that Order V Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 empowers a serving officer to effect service by affixation under specified conditions without prior court permission, and is not a penal provision. The Court further ruled that while Rent Controllers are not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, they possess unfettered discretion to adopt its equitable principles, including service by affixation.
Questions settled- Can a process server effect service of summons by affixation under Order V Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without prior permission of the Rent Controller?
- Is Order V Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a penal provision that cannot be applied in proceedings before a Rent Controller?
- Does a Rent Controller under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 have discretion to follow the procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 despite not being a court?
- AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD./DecreeHolder vs MESSRS JUMA KHAN AGHA JAVED1976 PLD Karachi 414 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-19Read full judgment →
- AURANGZEB vs The STATE1976 SCMR 199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Aurangzeb, for the murder of a sixteen-year-old girl. The appellant challenged the propriety of the death sentence, arguing lack of intent to kill and citing the delay in judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court addressed whether the death sentence was appropriate given the circumstances and the appellant's claims of passion and lack of premeditation. The Court held that the appellant’s use of a deadly weapon and the infliction of fatal abdominal kicks demonstrated a clear intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm. The Court rejected the argument that the refusal of a marriage proposal constituted a mitigating factor involving family honour, noting that such refusals are common and do not justify violent retaliation. Furthermore, the Court found the duration of the appellant's incarceration in the condemned cell was not extraordinary given the current volume of murder cases. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and the death sentence, while noting that the appellant could seek executive clemency if desired.
Questions settled- Does a refusal of a marriage proposal constitute a mitigating factor involving family honour in a murder case?
- Can the duration of time spent in a condemned cell, by itself, justify the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Does the use of a deadly weapon and the infliction of fatal blows to a vital part of the body establish an intent to cause death?
- AUN SAIEED HASHMI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 706 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-28Read full judgment →
- AUN SAIEED HASHMI AND Another vs THE STATE AND 2 Other1976 PLD Karachi 706 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-28Read full judgment →
- ATTA MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1366 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-27Read full judgment →
- ATTA MUHAMMAD vs CHHUTTA AND Other1976 SCMR 250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a long-standing land dispute originating in the former Kalat State. The appellant’s suit for possession was dismissed by the Wazir-e-Muarif on April 1, 1953. The core legal question was whether the appellant had filed a competent appeal against this dismissal, and if such an appeal remained pending for adjudication by the High Court following the merger of the State. Upon examining the original record, the Supreme Court held that the appellant had indeed filed a valid appeal before the Wazir-e-Azam on May 3, 1953, which remained undisposed of at the time of the State's amalgamation. Consequently, by operation of Section 7(5) of the Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955, the appeal stood transferred to the High Court of West Pakistan. The Court affirmed the principle that a litigant is entitled to at least one effective right of appeal against an original decree. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's dismissal of the appellant's application and directed the High Court to dispose of the pending appeal on its merits.
Questions settled- Does an appeal filed before a competent authority in a former State remain pending for transfer to the High Court under the Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955?
- Can a party be denied the right to have a pending appeal heard on its merits due to procedural confusion regarding subsequent, ineffective filings?
- Is an appeal filed against an order of a Wazir-e-Muarif before the Wazir-e-Azam considered a competent appeal under the Dasturul Amal Divani of Kalat State?
- ATTA MUHAMMAD RAJA vs DUNCAN STRATTON & Co. (U.K.) LTD.1976 PLC 643 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-14Read full judgment →
- ATTA MUHAMMAD RAJA vs DUNCAN STRATTON & Co. (U.K.) LTD. AND 21976 PLD Karachi 1096 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-15Read full judgment →
- ATTA MUHAMMAD RAJA vs DUNCAN STRATTON & Co. (U.K.) LTD. AND 2 Other1976 PLD Karachi 1096 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-14Read full judgment →
- ATAULLAH AND OTHERS vs GHULAM AHMED AND OTHERS Donees1976 PLD Revenue 41 · Board of Revenue · 1973-06-11Read full judgment →
- ATA MUHAMMAD KHAN vs Mst. KHANZADI AND Other1976 PLD Lahore 909 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-10Read full judgment →
- ATA MUHAMMAD KHAN vs Mst. KHANZADA1976 SCMR 104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land in Mauzia Fazilpur, District Dera Ghazi Khan. The core legal question was whether the underlying transaction between the parties constituted a sale, which is subject to the right of pre-emption, or an exchange, which is not. The trial court initially characterized the transaction as an exchange, but the District Judge reversed this finding on appeal, determining it was a sale. The High Court upheld this decision in second appeal after re-examining the evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the determination of whether a transaction is a sale or an exchange is primarily a question of fact. It further established that factors such as significant disparities in the area of land exchanged, the relative locations of the properties, the failure of the vendor to take possession of the exchanged land, and the vendor's ignorance regarding co-sharers are critical indicators supporting the classification of a transaction as a sale.
Questions settled- Is the determination of whether a transaction constitutes a sale or an exchange primarily a question of fact?
- Can a court in second appeal re-examine evidence to determine the nature of a transaction?
- What factors are relevant in distinguishing a sale from an exchange in the context of pre-emption suits?
- ASSISTANT PERSONNEL OFFICER (WORKSHOP), PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1976 PLC 849 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-23Read full judgment →
- ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER CARRIER AND COAXIL CABLES, TELEGRAPHS &1976 PLC 122 · Labour Court · 1974-10-27Read full judgment →
- ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LABOUR WELFARE, LYALLPUR vs Malik MUHAMMAD1976 PLC 166 · Labour Court · 1974-09-03Read full judgment →
- ASSAM OIL Co. LTD. vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE V AND OTHERS1976 PTD 266 · Calcutta High Court · 1970-07-23Read full judgment →
- ASMATULLAH vs OPEL LABORATORIES LTD., KARACHI1976 PLC 405 · Labour Court · 1973-08-01Read full judgment →
- ASIM FAROOQUI vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1261 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-14Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs GENERAL MANAGER, HEAVY MECHANICAL COMPLEX, TAXILA1976 PLC 62 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-03-25Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQ AHMED AND ANOTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 332 · Sindh High Court · 1972-12-10Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR HUSAIN AND 6 OTHERS vs Mst. HUSAN ARA AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 885 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR HUSAIN AND 6 Other vs Mst. HUSAN ARA AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 885 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI AND 3 Other vs Haji KHAMISO AND 3 Other1976 PLD Karachi 659 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI AND 3 omERs vs Haji KHAMISO AND 3 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 659 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
- ARSALLA KHAN vs BASHIR AHMAD BLOUR Arm 3 Other1976 PLD Supreme Court 581 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from a High Court writ petition regarding the leasing of octroi collection rights by the Peshawar Municipal Committee. The core legal questions were whether the Provincial Government possessed the authority under general administrative control provisions (Sections 61, 62, and 63 of the North-West Frontier Province People's Local Government Ordinance 1972) or Rule 31 of the West Pakistan Municipal Committee Octroi Rules 1964 to cancel a public auction bid and directly award an octroi collection lease by private treaty. The Supreme Court held that while the Government acted within its powers in setting aside a flawed, hasty auction that prejudiced municipal revenue, it had no lawful authority to grant the collection lease via private contract. The Court established that Rule 31 allows relaxation of rules but does not empower the executive to act directly contrary to the statutory mandate requiring octroi to be collected directly or leased by public auction. Furthermore, general supervisory powers cannot override specific statutory provisions governing municipal tax collection, and an aggrieved auction bidder can maintain a writ petition under Article 199 to challenge ultra vires administrative actions.
Questions settled- Can the Provincial Government rely on general supervisory powers under a statute to override specific statutory provisions regulating the collection and recovery of municipal taxes?
- Does the power to relax statutory rules authorize the executive to grant an octroi collection lease by private negotiation when the governing rules mandate public auction?
- Is a writ petition maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by an auction bidder challenging an executive action that violates statutory provisions?
- ARSALA KHAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 848 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-02Read full judgment →
- ARSALA KHAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND, KARACHI AND 3 Other1976 PLD Karachi 848 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-02Read full judgment →
- ARK OCEAN LINES LTD. (A PRIVATE Co.), KARACHI vs THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & MINERAL DEVELOPMENT (COAL CONTROL WING) AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 610 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-19Read full judgment →
- ARK OCEAN LINES LTD. (A PRIVATE CO.), KARACHI vs THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & MINERAL DEVELOP MENT (COAL' CONTROL WING) AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 610 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-19Read full judgment →
- ARIF HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, RAWALPINDI1976 PLC 471 · Labour Court · 1972-08-14Read full judgment →
- ARBAB SHAH AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 40 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-16Read full judgment →
- ANWARULLAH AND 7 Other vs SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF N.-W. F. P1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 66 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ANWAR AND 3 OTHERSConvict vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 560 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-17Read full judgment →
- AMRELIWALA HARDWARE INDUSTRIES, KARACHI vs COLLECTCR OF CUSTOMS1976 PLD Karachi 196 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-23Read full judgment →
- AMNABAI AND 15 OTHERS vs ABDUL WAHID AND 6 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 824 · Sindh High Court · 1966-12-22Read full judgment →
- AMNABAI AND 15 Other vs ABDUL WAHID AND 6 Other1976 PLD Karachi 824 · Sindh High Court · 1966-12-22Read full judgment →
- AMIRconvict vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1110 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-06Read full judgment →