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.
- ABDUL QADEER vs MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1976 P Cr. L J 1203 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for the cancellation of bail previously granted to the respondents. The core legal question was whether the bail order should be set aside due to allegations of professional misconduct by the respondents' counsel, who allegedly misled the Court regarding the status of the trial proceedings. The Court declined to cancel the bail, reasoning that the trial had already commenced and the recording of evidence was underway; cancelling bail at this advanced stage could improperly influence the trial proceedings. Regarding the conduct of the counsel, the Court found that the advocate failed in his duty to apprise the Court of the true status of the trial on the date the bail order was dictated. While the Court deemed this a grave act of professional indiscipline, it refrained from reporting the matter to the Bar Council or suspending the advocate's license, citing extenuating circumstances and the counsel's youth. The Court emphasized the principle that legal practitioners must be diligent and transparent, ensuring they do not withhold or omit material facts that could influence the Court's determination of a case.
Questions settled- Whether bail should be cancelled if the trial has already commenced and evidence is being recorded?
- Does an advocate have a duty to inform the Court of the true status of trial proceedings during a bail hearing?
- Can a court refrain from reporting professional misconduct to the Bar Council if extenuating circumstances exist?
- ABDUL MARD RATHORE vs FINANCIAL ADVISER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, P. W. R1976 PLC 536 · Labour Court · -Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 326 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID AND 6 mums vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 945 · Sindh High Court · 1974-07-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID alias MAJHA vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 545 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Multan, convicting the appellant under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to transportation for life after he was acquitted of the primary murder charge. The prosecution alleged that the appellant fired a pistol shot at the deceased during a sudden altercation, resulting in her death weeks later following hospitalisation. The core legal questions involved the credibility of interested and chance witnesses, the reliability of ocular testimony unsupported by independent corroboration, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitnesses were either interested, hostile, or chance witnesses whose testimonies suffered from material contradictions and inconsistencies, and that the physical layout of the scene precluded a clear view of the incident. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, laying down the principle that uncorroborated testimony of chance and interested witnesses, riddled with contradictions and falsified by physical features of the crime scene, is insufficient to sustain a criminal conviction.
Questions settled- Whether the uncorroborated testimony of chance witnesses can be relied upon to sustain a conviction?
- Does the evidence of an interested and inimical witness require independent corroboration to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
- Whether contradictions between statements made before a committing magistrate and a trial court render a witness unreliable?
- ABDUL MAJEED vs THE STATE1976 PLD Karachi 762 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, a Sub-Overseer at the Karachi Municipal Corporation, for criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a handwriting expert’s opinion versus eyewitness testimony and the admissibility of a confession made to a departmental officer. The prosecution alleged the appellant misappropriated a cheque intended for clearing agents by opening a fraudulent bank account. The Court held that the conviction was sound, dismissing the appeal. It established that an expert’s opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act 1872 is not conclusive proof and may be rebutted by overwhelming independent evidence from persons acquainted with the accused's handwriting. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a confession made to a person in authority is admissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act 1872 unless it is proven that the statement was obtained through inducement, threat, or promise, thereby establishing that the burden of proving involuntariness lies with the accused.
Questions settled- Is the opinion of a handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act 1872 conclusive proof of the facts stated therein?
- Can a confession made to a departmental officer be considered voluntary and admissible in evidence?
- Does the burden of proving that a confession was involuntary lie with the prosecution or the accused?
- ABDUL LATIF vs KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH THE CHIEF1976 PLD Karachi 508 · Sindh High Court · 1957-01-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF vs ABDUL RAZZAK AND 2 OTHERS1976 P Cr. L J 116 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQUE vs MESSRS SABEENA LTD.1976PLC 412 · Labour Court · 1975-10-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQConvict vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 713 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 685 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ vs ILAM DIN AND Other1976 SCMR 406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court upholding an order in a constitutional petition regarding the transfer of evacuee property under the settlement laws. The core legal question involved whether a belated claim form for property transfer could be re-opened through a miscellaneous application after an earlier order rejecting it had attained finality. Hamoodur Rahman, C.J., delivering the opinion for the court, held that an order rejecting a claim form, even if questionable, becomes final if not challenged through proper statutory remedies like appeal or revision, and cannot be circumvented or re-opened by filing a miscellaneous application. The court established the principle that finality attached to unappealed orders of settlement authorities cannot be disturbed collaterally through informal miscellaneous applications, and subsequent proceedings initiated thereon are legally unsustainable.
Questions settled- Whether an unappealed order of a settlement authority rejecting a claim form can be re-opened through a miscellaneous application?
- Does the issuance of a Provisional Transfer Order constitute the effective date of transfer for evacuee property?
- Can a miscellaneous application serve as a substitute for an appeal or revision against an order passed under settlement laws?
- ABDUL KARIM vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1976 SCMR 79 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment dismissing a second appeal under Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959. Respondent No. 1, transferee of a residential house via auction under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 28 of 1958, issued notice under Section 30 of the Act to the petitioner (an occupant). Upon non-payment of rent, ejectment proceedings were initiated. The petitioner challenged the tenancy and transfer validity, alleging the house was unassignable under Settlement Scheme No. IV as he was a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir. The Rent Controller ordered payment of arrears, which the District Judge set aside due to jurisdictional defects in confirmation. Retrospective statutory amendments later validated the transfer confirmation. The High Court condoned the respondent's delayed second appeal and restored the Rent Controller's order. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that Rent Controllers cannot question transfer orders issued by Settlement Authorities once a P.T.O. is issued and unchallenged.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller have jurisdiction to go behind a Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) issued by Settlement Authorities?
- Can a tenant challenge the validity of an auction transfer in eviction proceedings if no appeal or revision was filed against the transfer before the Settlement Authorities?
- Is the High Court justified in condoning delay in filing a second appeal when supported by an uncontradicted affidavit explaining valid reasons?
- ABDUL KARIM vs MEHAR DINA AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Revenue 63 · Board of Revenue · 1975-11-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs JAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 640 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs JAN MUHAMMAD AHD ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 640 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 PLD Peshawar 148 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-06-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM AND 2 Other vs THE STATE1976 PLD Peshawar 148 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-07-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR AND 6 Other vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1976 PLD Lahore 281 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID, AND 3 Others vs The STATE1976 SCMR 413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, facing prosecution for double murder, sought bail after being in custody for over four years without the commencement of their trial. The trial had been adjourned sine die to await the outcome of a related private complaint case involving other accused persons, which had been subjected to repeated revisions and remands. The Lahore High Court had previously denied bail, citing the specific roles assigned to the petitioners and the gravity of the offense. The Supreme Court considered whether this inordinate delay in trial, despite the gravity of the charges, constituted an abuse of the process of law. The Court held that while delay per se does not automatically entitle an accused to bail in non-bailable offenses, particularly those punishable by death or life imprisonment, such delay becomes a relevant ground for bail if it amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Finding that the petitioners were not responsible for the delay and that the prolonged detention resulted from the complainant's tactics, the Court granted bail.
Questions settled- Does delay in trial per se entitle an accused to the grant of bail in non-bailable offenses?
- Under what circumstances does delay in the completion of a trial become a relevant ground for the grant of bail?
- Can the tactics of a complainant party in prolonging proceedings be considered an abuse of the process of law justifying bail?
- ABDUL HAMID vs STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN1976 PLC 303 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-03-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID KHAN vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND Other1976 SCMR 19 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1966-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition challenges a prior Supreme Court judgment regarding the transfer of 'excess area' within an evacuee house compound. The petitioner, having previously failed in his claim to the transfer of the property where he occupied an out-house, sought to contest the Settlement Authorities' discretion in transferring the excess area to another party. The petitioner argued that under Chief Settlement Commissioner instructions, such excess area should be auctioned, and expressed a desire to bid. The Court held that the petitioner, having had his claim to the property finally rejected, lacked the necessary locus standi to challenge the transfer of the excess area. The Court further observed that a mere desire to bid at an auction does not confer a vested right to compel the auctioning of property. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, noting that any grievance regarding the violation of binding instructions from the Chief Settlement Commissioner should be addressed to that authority in a competent form, independent of the Court's previous order.
Questions settled- Does a person whose claim to the transfer of an evacuee property has been rejected have locus standi to challenge the transfer of excess area of that property to another?
- Does a mere desire to bid for a property at an auction create a vested right to compel the auctioning of that property?
- ABDUL HAKIM AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL GHAFOOR AND ANOTHER1976 PLD Karachi 504 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenged the appointment of a Receiver in a suit for the dissolution of a partnership and rendition of accounts. The petitioners argued that a prior application for attachment before judgment, which included an alternative prayer for a Receiver, precluded the subsequent application for the appointment of a Receiver. The Court rejected this contention, finding no legal bar to filing a separate, subsequent application for a Receiver. The core legal question concerned whether the appointment of a Receiver was "just and convenient" following the admitted dissolution of the partnership. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that once a partnership is dissolved, the appointment of a Receiver is a matter of course to facilitate the winding-up process. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that any delay or obstruction in winding up the partnership business constitutes sufficient grounds to warrant such an appointment. Finding that the impugned orders adhered to judicial principles, the Court dismissed the revision application, thereby upholding the appointment of the Receiver to manage the dissolution and accounting process.
Questions settled- Can a party file a subsequent application for the appointment of a Receiver if a prior application containing an alternative prayer for a Receiver was filed?
- Is the appointment of a Receiver a matter of course upon the dissolution of a partnership?
- Do delay and obstruction in the winding-up of a partnership business constitute sufficient grounds for the appointment of a Receiver?
- ABDUL HAI vs MESSRS S. N. M. INDUSTRIES, KARACHI AND ANUFHER1976 PLC 723 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAFEEZ vs SIRAJ DIN AND 2 Other1976 SCMR 323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee 'chaubara' (first-floor room) situated above two ground-floor shops. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner had initially transferred the property in 1960 based on possession, allocating one shop to the petitioner and the other shop along with the entire chaubara to Respondent No. 1. The petitioner did not challenge this initial transfer or the exclusion of the chaubara from his transfer documents until 1969, after Respondent No. 1 sold the chaubara to Respondent No. 2. The Settlement authorities and the High Court dismissed the petitioner's belated claims, finding that the survey register confirmed Respondent No. 1's possession of the chaubara. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence to show his possession of the chaubara or to disprove the survey register entries. Consequently, the Court ruled that a party who fails to challenge a transfer order for nine years without a satisfactory explanation cannot be allowed to reopen the matter.
Questions settled- Whether a party can challenge an initial settlement transfer order after an unexplained delay of nine years?
- Can an entry in a survey register regarding possession of an evacuee property be disproved solely by an allotment order that does not relate to the disputed portion of the property?
- Does the failure to object to the exclusion of a portion of property from transfer documents at the time of issuance preclude a subsequent claim over that portion?
- ABDUL HAFEEZ vs PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT & SUPPLIES1976 PLC 714 · Labour Court · 1976-07-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HABIB vs RAZA ALI AND 2 Other1976 SCMR 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of a portion of an evacuee property in Sialkot City between two displaced persons, Abdul Habib and Raza Ali. The core legal question was whether the High Court's previous judgment, which set aside a transfer of the entire property to a third party due to violations of Section 30(5) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, precluded the subsequent transfer of the disputed portion to Raza Ali under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the previous judgment did not adjudicate the rights of Raza Ali, who was not a party to those proceedings. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the protection afforded to displaced persons from Jammu and Kashmir regarding the transfer of property in their possession remained effective through paragraph 19 of Settlement Scheme No. IV, which was promulgated under Section 16-B of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, maintaining the respondent's possession and right to seek transfer.
Questions settled- Does a judgment setting aside the transfer of an entire property to a third party necessarily determine the rights of an occupant who was not a party to those proceedings?
- Can a displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir claim protection against the transfer of property in their possession under Settlement Scheme No. IV?
- Does the omission of Section 30(5) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 by Ordinance XIII of 1964 extinguish the protections provided to refugees under Settlement Scheme No. IV?
- ABDUL Gil A FFA R alias GHAFFRA AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 768 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAPOOR AND 2 Other vs THE STATE1976 PLD Karachi 986 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1380 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs NAWAB DIN1976 SCMR 390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, concerning the ejectment of the petitioner, Abdul Ghani, from a property in Sheikhupura at the instance of the respondent, Nawab Din, a transferee under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The Supreme Court had previously granted leave to appeal and allowed the petitioner to retain possession subject to specific conditions: depositing future monthly rents and furnishing security for arrears as determined by the Rent Controller. The respondent subsequently moved the Court alleging the petitioner's non-compliance, claiming the petitioner had been depositing rent for a different property to create a facade of compliance while failing to pay the actual rent for the disputed premises. The petitioner contested these allegations. Rather than adjudicating these collateral disputes, which would delay the final resolution, the Court determined that the interests of justice required an expedited hearing of the main appeal. Consequently, the Court ordered the main appeal to be heard on the existing record at Rawalpindi, bypassing further litigation on the incidental issues of compliance.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court bypass collateral disputes regarding compliance with interim orders to expedite the hearing of the main appeal?
- Does the failure to comply with conditions imposed for continued possession justify an immediate decision on the main appeal?
- ABDUL GHANI AND Another vs MUHAMMAD ALAM1976 SCMR 147 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioners challenged the rejection of their plaint due to failure to comply with a court order regarding the valuation of the suit and payment of court-fee. The trial court had directed the petitioners to file an amended plaint and make up the court-fee deficiency by a specific date. Upon failure to comply by the deadline, the trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners' subsequent appeals to the District Judge and the Lahore High Court were dismissed. The Supreme Court addressed whether the trial court was required to frame a formal issue regarding the interpretation of its own order before rejecting the plaint. The Court held that the trial court's order was clear and unambiguous, leaving no room for misunderstanding, and thus no formal issue was required. The petition was dismissed, affirming the consistent findings of the lower courts that the rejection of the plaint was justified due to non-compliance.
Questions settled- Is it mandatory for a trial court to frame a formal issue when interpreting its own prior order regarding the filing of an amended plaint and payment of court-fee?
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for failure to comply with a court order to make up court-fee deficiency by a specified date?
- ABDUL GHANI AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 P Cr. L J 1462 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed by four appellants against their conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, who sentenced them to life imprisonment for murder. The prosecution alleged that the appellants attacked the deceased with hatchets due to prior blood enmity, witnessed by three ocular witnesses. The High Court analyzed the evidentiary value of the ocular testimony, noting that one co-accused had already been acquitted on the same evidence and that the witnesses were interested. Applying established legal principles, the court held that where ocular evidence is unreliable or doubtful regarding one accused, it cannot sustain the conviction of co-accused without independent, unimpeachable corroborative evidence. The court found that the medical evidence contradicted the witness accounts of four simultaneous hatchet attacks, the failure to secure items bought by the witnesses cast doubt on their presence, and the joint recovery of hatchets from buried land was inadmissible against individual accused. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted all four appellants.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on the ocular evidence of interested witnesses which has already been found unreliable as to one co-accused without independent corroboration?
- Whether joint recoveries of crime weapons made at the pointation of multiple accused persons are admissible in evidence against them?
- What degree of independent corroborative evidence is required to sustain a capital charge when ocular testimony originates from interested witnesses and lacks physical connection to the accused?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND 2 Other1976 SCMR 299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside the cancellation of a property transfer made in favour of respondent No. 1, wherein the petitioner claimed rights through a subsequent deed of association. The core legal question concerns the condonation of delay and whether the petitioner provided a sufficient and satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the petition. The Supreme Court held that the petition was barred by limitation due to an unexplained delay of 109 days, noting that the petitioner failed to account for each day's delay and the periods taken in applying for and obtaining copies of the impugned judgment. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a satisfactory and day-to-day explanation for the entire period of delay, failing which the petition is liable to be dismissed as time-barred.
Questions settled- Whether a petitioner seeking condonation of delay must explain each day's delay?
- Is a petition filed after a delay of 109 days without satisfactory explanation liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1976 PLD Karachi 986 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs SECRETARY. DIVISIONAL EVACUEE TRUST COMMITTEE AND 13 Other1976 PLD Karachi 701 · Sindh High Court · 1975-01-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs SECRETARY, DIVISIONAL EVACUEE TRUST COMMITTEE AND 13 OTHERS1976 PLD Karachi 701 · Sindh High Court · 1975-01-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM AND 6 OTHERS1976 P Cr. L J 944 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT THROUGH CHIEF1976 SCMR 33 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from settlement proceedings regarding evacuee property comprising a residential house and attached garages that had been used as shops by local occupants since 1947. The petitioner, having obtained transfer of the residential portion, claimed that the attached garages formed part and parcel of the house under Section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The Settlement Authorities and the High Court held that because the garages were converted into shops, they were separate units to be disposed of by auction pursuant to instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Paragraph 20 of Settlement Scheme No. 1 and Section 2(12) of the Act. The petitioner further argued that the subsequent issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) in his favor validated his entitlement. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that converted properties are disposed of based on their use on December 20, 1958, and holding that a PTD issued contrary to subsisting settlement orders during pending litigation is without jurisdiction and confers no higher right.
Questions settled- Whether attached garages converted into shops post-partition can be treated as part of a residential house under Section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Whether properties converted to a different use after August 14, 1947 are to be disposed of according to their actual use on December 20, 1958 under Settlement Scheme No. 1?
- Does a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) issued contrary to subsisting orders of Settlement Authorities while litigation is pending confer valid title?
- ABDUL AZIZ vs ASSISTANT DI RSC f OR, IMMIGRATION AND PASSPORT, LAHORE1976 P Cr. L J 610 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ KHAN vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE AND 2 OTHERS1976 PLC [C. S. T.] 126 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1975-06-16Read full judgment →
- ABBAS ALI vs The STATE1976 SCMR 157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal arising from an order of the Lahore High Court declining post-arrest bail to the appellant, who was accused of abducting a minor girl and committing rape upon her. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing bail by relying solely on the First Information Report while ignoring conflicting material on record, including a Nikah Nama, a prior statement by the abductee indicating she left of her own accord, and differing medical opinions regarding her age. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, held that the High Court failed to properly evaluate the totality of the material on record, and granted bail to the appellant. The key principle laid down is that while considering bail, courts must evaluate all material placed on record rather than basing conclusions exclusively on the allegations contained in the First Information Report.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be refused solely on the basis of allegations in the First Information Report without considering conflicting material on record?
- Does a statement by an abductee indicating she left of her own accord justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- How should conflicting medical certificates regarding the age of an abductee be weighed at the bail stage?
- A. D. C. WORKERS' UNION (REGO, SOAK VALLEY LAND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, TALAGANG vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT1976 PLC 728 · Labour CourtRead full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 473 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-30Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE--1975 P Cr. L J 473 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-30Read full judgment →
- ZIAUDDIN Alias JOJA AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 429 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-19Read full judgment →
- ZAHIDA PARVEEN ETC. vs MAHMOOD JAVAD Esc.S1975 P Cr. L J 1171 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-21Read full judgment →
- ZAHEER AHMAD PARYEZ vs PUNJAB PROVINCE Through Secretary To Government1975 PLC (C.S.T.) 105 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-08-28Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ULLAH KHAN vs FAHIMUDDIN KHOKAR AND Another1975 P Cr. L J 494 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-07Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ULLAH KHAN vs FAH IMUDDIN KHOKAR AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 494 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-07Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ALI vs Mst. NASIM BEGUM1975 SCMR 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an appellate order of the Lahore High Court upholding the decision of the Guardian Judge, Jhang, which directed the petitioner-father to restore the custody of his minor daughter to the respondent-mother. The core legal question concerned the determination of the welfare of the minor child regarding custody between estranged parents under Islamic law and statutory provisions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the welfare of the minor demanding custody be given to the mother were well-founded, and declined to undertake a reappraisal of evidence in the absence of a substantial question of law. The key principle laid down is that the welfare of the minor is of paramount consideration in custody matters, and concurrent factual findings based on evidence will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court unless a sound legal ground is made out.
Questions settled- Whether the custody of a minor child should be restored to the mother based on the welfare and best interest of the minor?
- Can the Supreme Court reappraise evidence in a petition for special leave to appeal against concurrent findings of lower courts in custody matters?
- ZAFAR AHMAD KHAN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1300 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-07Read full judgment →
- YOUSUF KHAN vs Messers ALLIED TRADING CORPORATION Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 158 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-09-19Read full judgment →
- YOUSAF SHAH THROUGH HIS BROTHER (REPRESENTED BY 9 LEGAL OTHERS) vs Haji GHULAM JAN KHAN1975 SCMR 464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging an order of the Peshawar High Court dated 20-9-1974, which dismissed the petitioner's Second Appeal and upheld the concurrent ejectment orders passed by the Rent Controller and the lower appellate authority on the ground of default in payment of rent. The petitioner contended that the landlord had refused to accept rent at the originally fixed rate and demanded an enhanced amount. The Supreme Court observed that concurrent findings of fact existed regarding the default, and it was conceded that no rent was paid or tendered despite service of a notice demanding arrears. The Court affirmed the established legal principle that a landlord's prior refusal to accept rent does not absolve the tenant of the ongoing obligation to pay or tender rent for subsequent months. Finding the petition both devoid of merit and time-barred by 56 days without satisfactory explanation, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's prior refusal to accept rent absolve the tenant from the continued obligation to pay or tender rent for subsequent months?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed on the ground of limitation where no satisfactory explanation is provided for the delay?
- YARA vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 508 · Lahore High Court · 1974-09-02Read full judgment →
- YAQEENUDDIN AND OTHERS vs ABDUL MAJID AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 305 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition seeking leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which set aside an order of the Settlement Commissioner correcting the area of a cotton factory in the Provisional Transfer Order issued to the respondent. The core legal question concerns whether the correction of the area in the Provisional Transfer Order constituted an impermissible material alteration or the correction of an obvious error, and whether proprietary rights vested in the petitioners regarding the disputed land under the Land Settlement Act could be affected in ancillary proceedings. The Supreme Court held that there is force in the contention that the insertion of the correct area was not a material alteration and that the vested proprietary rights could not be taken away through such proceedings. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter further, laying down that ancillary proceedings cannot be used to divest parties of absolute proprietary rights legally vested under settlement laws.
Questions settled- Whether the correction of an area in a Provisional Transfer Order constitutes an impermissible material alteration?
- Can absolute proprietary rights vested under the Land Settlement Act be taken away in ancillary proceedings?
- Does the High Court have the authority to set aside a Settlement Commissioner's order correcting an obvious error in property records?
- Y. M. C. A. EMPLOYEES UNION And 6 Other vs The REGISTRAR OF TRADE1975 PLC 83 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-07-12Read full judgment →
- WORKMEN vs The UNITED BANK Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 160 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-23Read full judgment →
- WORKER'S UNION vs SIND GOVERNMENT PRESS, KARACHI1975 PLC 121 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-10-04Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION' vs HUSSAIN SUGAR MILLS Ltd.,1975 PLC 874 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-10-14Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION vs SALIM INDUSTRIES Ltd., KARACHI , .1975 PLC 23 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-04-22Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION vs METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 230 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-09-03Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION vs Messrs TIP TOP DRY CLEANERS, KARACHI1975 PLC 47 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-04-09Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION vs Messrs RECKITT & COLMAN (Pak.) Lid., KARACHI1975 PLC 167 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-20Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION vs Messrs RAHIM TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., KARACHI , .1975 PLC 110 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-07-16Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION vs Messrs NOOR INDUSTRIES1975 PLC 779 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-08-21Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION vs Messrs HOTEL UNITED, KARACHI1975 PLC 533 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-05-22Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION vs Messers JOHNSON & PHILLIPS (PAKISTAN) Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 134 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-08-29Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION vs Messers ALLIED LABOUR SUPPLY Co., KARACHI1975 PLC 606 · Labour Court · 1975-02-17Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION vs Messers ADAM TEA BLENDING FACTORY1975 PLC 762 · Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-08-27Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION vs AL-MURTAZ TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., HYDERABAD1975 PLC 719 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-05-28Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION , vs STANDARD PRINTING PRESS, KARACHI1975 PLC 567 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-05-29Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' AND STAFF UNION vs LYALLPUR COTTON MILLS, LYALLPUR1975 PLC 649 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-02-21Read full judgment →
- WORKERS UNION vs SILVER COTTON MILLS Ltd., HYDERABAD1975 PLC 686 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-06-13Read full judgment →
- WORKERS UNION vs NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION, KARACHI1975 PLC 521 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-02-05Read full judgment →
- WORKERS UNION vs Messrs EJAZ BROTHERS CANVAS INDUSTRIES, LAHORE /Pb.1975 PLC 617 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-06-30Read full judgment →
- WORKERS UNION vs Messrs DIAMOND SILK MILLS KARACHI , .1975 PLC 511 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-01-24Read full judgment →
- WORKERS UNION vs JUPITER GENERAL INDUSTRIES, KARACHI , Nd January1975 PL C 507 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- WORKERS & STAFF UNIONS, MAKKARWAL vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, SARGODHA REGION,1975 PLC 614 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-06-14Read full judgment →
- WORKERS & STAFF UNIONS, MAKKARWAL vs MANZOOR HUSSAIN And 4 Others1975 PLC 614 · Labour Court · 1975-06-10Read full judgment →
- WORKERS' UNION vs Messes PAKISTAN DYEING & PRINTING MILLS, KARACHI1975 PLC 95 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-07-22Read full judgment →
- WILLIAM SONS & COMPANY Ltd., KARACHI vs WORKMEN'S UNION And Another1975 PLC 98 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-04-15Read full judgment →
- WAZIR GUL vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was confirmed by the Peshawar High Court. The prosecution's case rested on a First Information Report lodged by the deceased himself shortly after receiving two knife injuries, which was subsequently treated as a dying declaration, corroborated by medical evidence and the petitioner's abscondence. The petitioner contended that the statement could not be treated as a dying declaration because the deceased was not under immediate apprehension of death when making it, and that the intention to kill was absent. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that statutory law does not require a statement to be made under immediate apprehension of death to qualify as a dying declaration. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the intention to kill was clearly discernible from the choice of weapon, the vital seat of the injury, and the resulting internal damage.
Questions settled- Does Pakistani law require that a statement be made under immediate apprehension of death for it to be treated as a dying declaration?
- Can the intention to kill be inferred from the nature of the weapon used and the seat of the injury in a murder trial?
- Can a First Information Report lodged by the deceased himself be treated as a dying declaration if he subsequently succumbs to his injuries?
- WALI MUHAMMAD AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 63 · Sindh High Court · 1973-04-20Read full judgment →
- WAH STONE & LIME QUARRY Ltd. vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1975 PLC 309 · Labour Court · 1974-06-01Read full judgment →
- VICE-CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD YAQUB1975 PLC 601 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-05-31Read full judgment →
- V. S. MARTIN vs Messrs ENEROGINVEST CO., LAHORE1975 PLC 347 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-06Read full judgment →
- URIS AND 6 OTHETRS vs THE STATE-1975 P Cr. L J 945 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-26Read full judgment →
- UNITED TEXTILE MILLS, MULTAN vs NAZIR AHMAD1975 PLC 19 · Labour Court · 1973-12-20Read full judgment →
- UNITED SALT WORKERS UNION vs KHURSHEED SALT WORKS Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 145 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-06Read full judgment →
- UNITED CERAMICS, KARACHI vs WORKERS' UNION1975 PLC 242 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-07-24Read full judgment →
- UNITED CARRIAGE COMPANY, MULTAN vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1975 PLC 674 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-05-12Read full judgment →
- UNION vs TARIQ OIL MILLS, KARACHI And 13 Others , .1975 PLC 714 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-07-31Read full judgment →
- UNION vs Messrs WINNER BAR And 2 Others , .1975 PLC 841 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-09-24Read full judgment →
- UNION vs AGRICULTURE ENGINEER, HYDERABAD DIVISION, TANDOJAM AND ANOTHER1975 PLC 386 · Industrial Court · -Read full judgment →
- UMER vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1975 SCMR 427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court upholding a decree for damages in favor of the Government of Pakistan against the petitioner for breach of a construction contract. The dispute originated when the Government cancelled the contract due to a disagreement over the percentage of increase above scheduled rates and subsequently engaged another contractor at a higher cost, suing the petitioner for the difference. The High Court decreed the suit, and a Division Bench confirmed it in a Letters Patent Appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner raised a single contention that the courts below failed to give credit for a security deposit of Rs. 7,500. The core legal question concerned the adjustment of the undisputed security deposit against the decretal amount. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that leave was unnecessary as the security deposit, if duly furnished, could be adjusted and entered as part-satisfaction of the decree during execution proceedings. The key principle laid down is that undisputed security deposits can be addressed in execution without requiring interference through leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether special leave to appeal should be granted where the sole grievance is the omission to give credit for a security deposit that can be adjusted in execution?
- Can a security deposit furnished in respect of a contract be adjusted against the decretal amount during execution proceedings?
- UMAR AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1389 · Sindh High Court · 1972-12-08Read full judgment →
- UAZ HUSSAIN SHAH vs Messrs ZAMAN TEXTILE MILLS, KOTRI1975 PLC 356 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-02-27Read full judgment →
- UAZ HASSAIN SHAH vs Messrs ZAMAN TEXTILE MILLS, KOTRI1975 PLC 384 · Industrial Court · 1972-12-23Read full judgment →
- TOOH vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 440 · Sindh High Court · 1973-07-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Darya Khatoon, which was referred to the Sindh High Court along with a murder reference under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution alleged that the appellant murdered the deceased due to a grudge arising from her refusal to let the appellant marry her daughter. Upon appeal and reference, the High Court evaluated the ocular testimony, judicial confession, and recovery evidence. The court found the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses unreliable due to distance and contradictions, ruled out the retracted judicial confession recorded after a delay, and rejected the recovery of the hatchet due to procedural flaws and lack of credible corroboration. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, set aside the conviction and sentence, and allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses situated at a considerable distance during agricultural work can be safely relied upon without independent corroboration?
- Whether a delay of over twenty-four hours in recording a judicial confession renders it fatal to its acceptance?
- Whether the recovery of a weapon produced before formal arrest satisfies the legal requirements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of a retracted judicial confession and a weak motive when ocular and circumstantial evidence fail?