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.

• THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD1975 P Cr. L J 1374 · Sindh High Court · 1975-06-16Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ1975 P Cr. L J 246 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-14Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Mirza JAWAD BEG1975 SCMR 346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-06-03
  suspension of sentencespecial courtsuppression of terrorist activitiesinterlocutory orderleave to appealappellate jurisdictionabstract question of law
  Summary & questions settled

  These two petitions by the State raise a common question of law regarding the interpretation of section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, specifically whether the High Court is competent to suspend the sentences of convicts during the pendency of their appeals. The respondents were convicted by a Special Court and filed appeals along with applications for suspension of sentence in the High Court. The High Court held that it possesses the power to suspend sentences. The State sought leave to appeal against this interpretation. The Supreme Court observed that the impugned order only answered an abstract question of law without any operative order actually suspending the sentences, and the applications for suspension were yet to be determined on merits. Holding that entertaining petitions against abstract or interlocutory interpretations without operative orders would encourage piecemeal decisions, multiplicity of proceedings, and waste of public time, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has the authority to suspend the sentence of a person convicted by a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Can the State seek leave to appeal against an interlocutory order or an abstract interpretation of law where no operative order affecting the parties has been passed by the High Court?
  • Does Article 185 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 permit appeals by special leave against non-final or interlocutory orders of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs JAN MUHAMMAD AND 3 Others1975 P Cr. L J 1257 · Sindh High Court · 1975-07-28Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ILLAHI BAKHSH1975 SCMR 307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-04
  special leave to appealgrave and sudden provocationmurderbenefit of doubtalteration of convictionmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition for special leave to appeal filed by the State against the judgment of the High Court, which altered the respondent's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to sections 304 Part I and 325. The respondent was initially tried for the murder of one Rasool Bux and for causing injuries to Mst. Pathani. The trial court convicted the respondent of murder and sentenced him to death, but acquitted his co-accused. On appeal, the High Court accepted the defence plea of grave and sudden provocation based on the evidence of Mst. Pathani and her father, coupled with infirmities in the prosecution's direct evidence regarding bloodstains and witness discrepancies, and reduced the conviction. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in extending the benefit of the doubt and altering the conviction based on the defence evidence and discrepancies in the prosecution case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted upon correct principles in giving the benefit of the doubt to the respondent and dismissed the petition, laying down that appellate courts may rely on defence admissions and inherent weaknesses in prosecution evidence to alter convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on grave and sudden provocation?
  • Can an appellate court rely on the admissions of defence witnesses to support a plea of provocation despite being rejected by the trial court?
  • Does the absence of bloodstains on the victim's cot materially weaken eyewitness testimony in a murder trial?
  • When should the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal or reduction of sentence concurrent with findings of evidentiary infirmities?
  Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs FAKIR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 571 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-30Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs FAKIR MUHAMMAD AND AND-TIM1975 P Cr. L J 571 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-30Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ABDULLAH1975 P Cr. L J 1402 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-16Read full judgment →
• THE STATE THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL, WEST PAKISTAN &1975 P Cr. L J 105 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-12Read full judgment →
• THE STATE THROUGH 1118 ADDITIONAL ADVOCATEGENERAL, WEST PAKISTAN &1975 P Cr. L J 105 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-12Read full judgment →
• THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE vs Mian NOOR AHMAD AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 91 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-11-26
  land acquisitionappellate jurisdictionspecial leave to appealprocedural negligencecivil appealslimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of connected appeals arising from land acquisition proceedings in Lahore, where the Provincial Government and landowners challenged the market price fixed by the Senior Civil Judge. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Government’s appeals, filed pursuant to certificates of fitness under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, were maintainable before the Supreme Court following the enforcement of the 1962 Constitution, which mandated that civil appeals to the Supreme Court lie only by special leave. The Supreme Court held that the appeals filed by the Provincial Government were not properly constituted because they lacked the requisite special leave under Article 58 of the 1962 Constitution. Consequently, the Court rejected the Government's oral prayer to convert the appeals into petitions for special leave, citing an unexplained delay of over eight years and emphasizing that the Government is not entitled to preferential treatment over ordinary citizens in civil litigation. The principle laid down is that procedural requirements for invoking appellate jurisdiction must be strictly followed, and the Government cannot claim immunity from the consequences of procedural negligence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Government receive preferential treatment in civil litigation compared to ordinary citizens?
  • Can an appeal filed under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be maintained in the Supreme Court after the enforcement of the 1962 Constitution without obtaining special leave?
  • Is the Supreme Court required to condone an eight-year delay in filing a petition for special leave to appeal simply because the appellant is the Provincial Government?
  Read full judgment →
• THB STATE vs JAHAN DAD1975 P Cr. L J 1181 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-24Read full judgment →
• Thb PAKISTAN SERVICES Ltd., KARACHI vs WORKERS' UNION1975 PL C 185 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-10-07Read full judgment →
• Thb MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK Ltd., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES UNION1975 PLC 578 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-02-25Read full judgment →
• Thb LONDON ASSURANCE, KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES UNION And Another1975 PLC 250 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-09-24Read full judgment →
• TALIB HUSSAIN MALIK vs SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, LAHORE And 111975 PLC (C.S.T.) 64 · Punjab Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-25Read full judgment →
• TALIB HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE Respondent1975 P Cr. L J 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-27Read full judgment →
• TAJA Alias TAJO vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1265 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-23Read full judgment →
• TAJ DIN vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1975 SCMR 524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-13
  Rehabilitation Settlement SchemeMuslim mortgageeRehn Meadiquasi-permanent allotmentpolicy memorandumdisplaced personmortgagee rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition concerning the entitlement of a displaced person to purchase land held under mortgagee rights. The core legal question was whether the appellant, a Muslim mortgagee of land categorized as Rehn Meadi, was eligible to purchase the land under the policy memorandum dated 18th May 1962, which extended purchase options to certain mortgagees. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not entitled to the purchase option. The Court determined that the 1962 memorandum was intended to apply exclusively to mortgagees covered by previous instructions issued on 28th December 1959 and 11th April 1962. Since the appellant’s specific category of mortgage (Rehn Meadi) was expressly excluded from the benefits of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme by paragraph 51 of Part II, which remained in force, the general policy did not apply to him. Furthermore, the appellant’s possession was governed by a specific individual order rather than the general policy, precluding his claim to the statutory purchase option.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Muslim mortgagee of the 'Rehn Meadi' category eligible for the purchase option under the memorandum dated 18th May 1962?
  • Does a specific individual order governing land tenure supersede general policy instructions regarding rehabilitation allotments?
  • Was paragraph 51 of Part II of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme superseded by the memorandum dated 18th May 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed WILAYAT ALI SHAH AND 8 OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1975 SCMR 495 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-22
  rehabilitation settlement schemedisplaced personstemporary allotmentgovernment policy decisionpresumption of regularityplenary powerevacuee propertyjurisdictional fact
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, displaced persons from Jammu and Kashmir, challenged the cancellation of their temporary land allotments, which had been reduced by authorities in 1963 pursuant to a government policy decision to cap land allocations for subsistence. The petitioners argued that their temporary status was protected under paragraph 4-A(ix) of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, rendering the cancellation invalid, particularly without notice. The Supreme Court held that the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme does not preclude the Government from modifying settlement policies to address evolving exigencies, such as increased pressure on available land. The Court emphasized that rehabilitation legislation is of a special character, construed based on policy considerations rather than standard judicial norms. Furthermore, the Court applied the presumption of regularity to official acts under the Evidence Act, 1872, noting that the petitioners failed to rebut the existence of the government policy. The Court concluded that the authorities acted within their jurisdiction and dismissed the petition, affirming that the Government retains plenary power to adjust allotment limits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme preclude the Government from modifying land allotment policies to address changing exigencies?
  • Is there an initial presumption in favour of the regularity of official acts regarding government policy decisions?
  • Are rehabilitation and evacuee legislations to be construed based on policy considerations rather than standard judicial norms?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed WARASAT HUSSAIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-14
  displaced personland allotmentProduce Index Unitsrevivification of claimspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the land allotment of a displaced person, Mst. Nafisa Begum, whose initial provisional allotment of fifty-two acres and nineteen ghuntas was subsequently reduced to 36.65 acres upon revivification of her verified claim. A portion of the cancelled area was allotted to the predecessor of the respondents. Following protracted litigation through revenue authorities, civil courts, and the High Court, the High Court set aside certain orders and restored the respondents' allotment on the view that the petitioner could not claim beyond 36.65 acres. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that 36.65 acres converted differently into Produce Index Units based on the quality and location of the land in Khairpur District. The core legal question involves the proper calculation and entitlement of land in Produce Index Units relative to the verified claim. The Court directed a report to be called for from the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner, Khairpur, to clarify the Produce Index Unit values and land types in Khairpur District before making a final determination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allottee is entitled to land exceeding the acreage of their finally verified claim when converted into Produce Index Units?
  • Can a civil court decree challenge the validity of a land cancellation under settlement laws?
  • How is the Produce Index Unit value of land calculated in the Khairpur District for displaced persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed WAJID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-13
  cheatingcriminal breach of trustacquittalcriminal referencecivil nature disputeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which had rejected a criminal reference recommending the setting aside of the acquittal of respondent No. 2. The underlying matter arose from a private complaint filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 2 for offences under sections 420, 409, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, alleging that compensation books entrusted to the respondent for the acquisition of flats had been misappropriated and that cheating had occurred. The trial magistrate had acquitted respondent No. 2 on the ground that the dispute was of a civil nature, and the High Court had declined to interfere with the acquittal on reference under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court considered whether criminal liability arose from the transaction. The Court held that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature and that the High Court was fully justified in rejecting the criminal reference, as it was doubtful whether any offence of cheating had been committed. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dispute involving the entrustment of compensation books for property acquisition constitutes a criminal offence of cheating or is primarily of a civil nature?
  • Is the High Court justified in rejecting a criminal reference recommending the setting aside of an acquittal where no clear case of criminal intent is made out?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed SULEMAN SHAH vs KOHINOOR BATTERY MANUFACTURERS Ltd. And Another1975 PLC 228 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-09-03Read full judgment →
• Syed NAIM HYDER vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 213 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-06Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD ZAKI vs MAQSOOD ALI KHAN (DECEASED) AND 2 OTHERS1975 SCMR 205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-05-30
  reconsiderationlegal representativesabatement of appealcondonation of delaysufficient causecivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an application seeking reconsideration of a previous order dismissing the petitioner's application to implead the legal representatives of a deceased principal respondent in a civil appeal, which had resulted in the appeal abating against the petitioner due to a delay of 286 days. The core legal question was whether sufficient cause was shown for condoning the long delay in bringing the legal representatives on record, given the petitioner's plea of lack of knowledge regarding the death. The Supreme Court found the petitioner's plea of ignorance to be incredible, noting that the petitioner and the deceased lived in the same building and the petitioner had visited Lahore during the relevant period. However, considering that delay had already been condoned with respect to a co-appellant, the Court held that it was proper to condone the delay for the petitioner as well, allowing the appeal to proceed as a whole rather than partially. The key principle laid down is that while unexplained and inexcusable delays in bringing legal representatives on record will normally result in abatement, the court may exercise discretion to condone delay to ensure an appeal proceeds as a whole when co-appellants are similarly situated.

  Questions settled

  • Can an order dismissing an application to bring legal representatives on record due to prolonged delay be reconsidered?
  • Whether failure to implead legal representatives within the prescribed period results in the abatement of an appeal?
  • Is a party's plea of unawareness of a respondent's death credible when residing in the same building?
  • Can delay in impleading legal representatives be condoned to allow an appeal to proceed as a whole when it was previously condoned for a co-appellant?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD ZAKI AND ANOTHER vs MAQSOOD ALI KHAN AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-05-30
  property transferundisputed possessionDisplaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958earmarking schemeallotment orderremand ordersettlement of claims
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave challenged a High Court Division Bench judgment that remanded a property transfer dispute under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to investigate the authenticity of an allotment order. The core legal question was whether such an inquiry was necessary given the established legal position regarding priority of possession. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the remand order and restoring the Single Judge's decision. The Court held that the genuineness of the specific allotment order was immaterial because the appellant’s prior, undisputed possession of the property was sufficiently established by the record. The Court reaffirmed the principle that under the relevant notification, priority of undisputed possession is the governing factor for property transfer, effectively abolishing distinctions between allottees and non-allottees. Furthermore, the Court noted that the respondent was ineligible to compete for the property transfer due to his prior participation in an earmarking scheme. Consequently, the Court determined that the remand served no useful purpose, as the dispute could be resolved based on existing evidence of prior possession.

  Questions settled

  • Does the priority of undisputed possession determine the right to transfer property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Is a claimant who participated in an earmarking scheme disqualified from competing for the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Can a court dispense with an inquiry into the genuineness of an allotment order if the claimant's prior undisputed possession is otherwise established?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed MAHMOOD HUSSAIN vs SIND LABOUR COURT NO. 4. KARACHI And Another1975 PLC 546 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• SYED JILANI vs THE ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-07
  condonation of delaylimitationtime-barred petitionleave to appealproprietary rightsprocedural delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, but it was submitted beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The petitioner sought condonation of delay, citing that he was outside Karachi and that his son had delayed delivering the Power of Attorney to his counsel. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that the Registry of the Court at Karachi was closed on the Friday when the document was finally available. The Court rejected these explanations, noting that the reasoning provided was incoherent and did not justify the delay. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Registry of the Court at Karachi does not close on Fridays, contradicting the petitioner's assertion. Given that valuable proprietary rights had already vested in the respondent, the Court held that it was not a fit case to exercise its discretion to condone the delay. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as time-barred, emphasizing that procedural delays without sufficient cause cannot be excused when they prejudice established rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does a claim that a court registry was closed on a Friday constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay if the claim is factually incorrect?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be entertained if it is filed beyond the period of limitation without a sufficient explanation for the delay?
  • Does the vesting of valuable proprietary rights in a respondent influence the court's discretion to condone a delay in filing an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed HASAN NAWAZ AND OTHERS vs MASOOD AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-11
  settlement schemeallotment of landremandleave to appealrival claimants
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which allowed writ petitions and remanded the case to the Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision. The dispute pertains to land in the former Federal Area of Karachi allotted under Settlement Scheme No. VI. The petitioners' allotments were initially confirmed, subsequently cancelled due to their lower category status among claimants, restored by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, challenged via writ petitions, remanded, and again mishandled by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on technical grounds rather than determining respective entitlements. The core legal question concerns whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner was bound to inquire into and decide the respective entitlements of rival claimants under the remand directions. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Settlement Commissioner failed to follow previous remand directions and was legally bound to inquire into the respective entitlements and superior categories of the rival claimants. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Additional Settlement Commissioner is bound to follow remand directions to inquire into the respective entitlements of rival claimants?
  • Can land allotments under Settlement Scheme No. VI be sustained when allottees belong to the lowest category of eligible claimants?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal when lower authorities fail to determine rival claims on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed ASLAM SHAH vs Messrs KOHINOOR BATTERY MANUFACTURERS Ltd.,1975 PLC 237 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-06Read full judgment →
• Syed AMANAT ALI vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 952 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-21Read full judgment →
• Syed AHMAD SHAH vs Haji FAZAL RAHIM AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 268 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-07
  evacuee propertyrental allotmentSettlement Scheme No. VISettlement Scheme No. VIItransfer of propertywrit petitionnatural justiceremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court accepting a writ petition filed by the respondents against orders of the settlement authorities concerning evacuee property. The petitioner, a non-claimant displaced person, had originally obtained a rental allotment of land in Jhungra Kot, Takht Bhai, and later claimed to have constructed buildings thereon. Subsequently, the Additional Settlement Commissioner ordered the transfer of the property to the petitioner under Settlement Scheme No. VI. The respondents, who were in possession of various tenements and had secured transfer orders and P.T.Os. under Settlement Scheme No. VII, were not parties to those proceedings. A compromise in revision further affected the rights. The High Court quashed the impugned orders and remanded the case for a proper inquiry after hearing all parties. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was just and proper, emphasizing that diametrically antagonistic orders had been passed without proper inquiry, particularly regarding whether the property qualified for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VI as an urban building site. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a building site situated in an area which was not an urban area at the time of Independence could be transferred under Settlement Scheme No. VI?
  • Whether an order of transfer of evacuee property passed without hearing affected parties in possession is sustainable?
  • Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed cure a transfer order passed without legal competency or jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• SUNDER DAS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 511 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-23Read full judgment →
• SUNDER DAS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER-1975 P Cr. L J 511 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-23Read full judgment →
• SULTAN MASUD TIWANA vs GENERAL MANAGER, DA WOOD HERCULES1975 PLC 556 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• SULTAN KHAN AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1031 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• SULEMAN KHAN AND OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1975 SCMR 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-22
  Settlement Scheme No. VIIISettlement Scheme No. Iconcurrent findings of factreappraisal of evidencespecial leave to appealcomposite propertyallotment of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the denial of a claim for a residential unit within a composite property in Lyallpur. The petitioners, claiming under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, sought the allotment of a residential unit. However, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, the Additional Settlement Commissioner, and the Settlement Commissioner concurrently found that the entire property, including all residential and commercial units, had already been disposed of under Settlement Scheme No. I via an order dated 24th December 1959. The High Court affirmed these findings of fact after reviewing the record. The core legal question was whether the lower authorities and the High Court erred in their factual determination regarding the availability of the property. The Supreme Court held that the findings of fact, supported by site inspections and the record, were conclusive. Consequently, the Court refused to undertake a reappraisal of evidence, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on record and site inspection are not subject to interference in appellate jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court undertake a reappraisal of evidence where concurrent findings of fact have been reached by lower authorities and the High Court?
  • Does a property already disposed of under Settlement Scheme No. I remain available for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
  Read full judgment →
• SULEMAN KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-12-09
  bail cancellationcriminal procedurecoercive processpolice custodyspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal converted into an appeal, challenging an order of the Lahore High Court dated 28th November 1974 which cancelled the bail of the petitioners Suleman Khan and Shabbir Khan and directed that they be taken into custody. The core legal question concerned the legality of directing the custody of accused persons when no process of any kind had been issued against them by the Magistrate dealing with the case, and where they were not required for police custody in connection with the registered First Information Report. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that in the absence of any coercive process issued by the Magistrate or any requirement for police custody, the High Court's direction to take the petitioners into custody was unsustainable. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside, leaving the Magistrate to deal with the complaint in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court direct the custody of accused persons when no coercive process has been issued by the trial Magistrate?
  • Is bail liable to be cancelled and custody ordered where the accused are not required for police custody or trial proceedings?
  • How should a Magistrate proceed with a complaint-case when an appellate court sets aside an improper bail cancellation order?
  Read full judgment →
• Sufi MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 628 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-19Read full judgment →
• STATE vs SHAHAN AND ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 630 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-31Read full judgment →
• STATE vs SHAHAN AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 630 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-31Read full judgment →
• STATE THROUGH ADVOCATEGENERAL (SIND) AND EXOFFICIO PUBLIC1975 P Cr. L J 70 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-17Read full judgment →
• STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE GENERAL (SIND) AND EX OFFICIO PUBLIC1975 P Cr. L J 70 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-17Read full judgment →
• STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION Ltd. KARACHI vs Mst. KHATOON And 21975 PLC 777 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-08-21Read full judgment →
• STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI vs WASIUDDIN AHMAD1975 P Cr. L J 707 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-05Read full judgment →
• STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER vs HAMIDULLAH1975 SCMR 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-04
  Foreign Exchange RegulationBurden of ProofCriminal ConvictionResidency StatusStatutory NotificationLeave to Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside the respondent's conviction under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the ingredients of the offence, specifically regarding the residency status of the individual on whose instructions the respondent had transferred funds. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the prosecution failed to prove that the person in question was a national or domicile of Pakistan who had taken up abode outside Pakistan, as required by the relevant notification issued under the Act. The Court affirmed that convictions cannot be sustained based on mere presumptions and assumptions; the prosecution bears the burden of proving all essential ingredients of the offence. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, endorsing the principle that in the absence of evidence establishing the residency status required by the statutory notification, a conviction under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act cannot be maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 sustainable if the prosecution fails to prove the residency status of the person on whose instructions the transaction was made?
  • Does the prosecution bear the burden of proving all ingredients of an offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 rather than relying on presumptions?
  • What evidence is required to establish that a person is a resident outside Pakistan for the purposes of the notification issued under section 20 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947?
  Read full judgment →
• STAR TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., KARACHI vs WORKERS UNION1975 PLC 440 · Labour Court · 1972-10-28Read full judgment →
• STANLEY YOUNG AND 3 Others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 21975 P Cr. L J 1 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-02Read full judgment →
• STAFF UNION vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN PEOPLE'S FEDERATION, KARACHI1975 PLC 337 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-02-22Read full judgment →
• STAFF UNION vs Messrs LAHORE COMMERCIAL BANK, KARACHI , ,1975 PLC 128 · Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-27Read full judgment →
• STAFF UNION vs Messrs INTERNATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 92 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-03-21Read full judgment →
• STAFF UNION vs BRITISH AIRWAYS, KARACHI1975 PLC 506 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-01-08Read full judgment →
• SOUTH BRITISH INSURANCE EMPLOYEES' UNION vs THE SIND LABOUR COURT1975 SCMR 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-16
  labour courtindustrial relationsestablishment closurestatutory interpretationpresiding officer qualificationstanding orderswinding up
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had upheld a Labour Court's decision granting an insurance company permission to close its Karachi establishment under Standing Order 11-A. The petitioner, an employees' union, challenged the Labour Court's decision on the grounds of the Presiding Officer's qualifications and the procedural timing of the closure application. The Supreme Court addressed two primary legal questions: whether a Civil Judge promoted to officiate as an Additional District Judge satisfies the statutory qualification requirements for a Labour Court Presiding Officer, and whether Standing Order 11-A mandates that a closure application must be the initial step in the winding-up process. The Court held that the Presiding Officer was qualified, as the statute requires only that the appointee be a District or Additional District Judge at the time of appointment, not that they have served in that capacity for any duration. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Standing Order 11-A does not prescribe a specific sequence of steps for closing an establishment, provided the requisite permission is obtained before the actual closure.

  Questions settled

  • Does a person promoted to officiate as an Additional District Judge satisfy the qualification requirements for a Labour Court Presiding Officer under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Does Standing Order 11-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 require an application for closure to be the first step in the process of closing an establishment?
  • Must a Presiding Officer of a Labour Court have served as a District or Additional District Judge for a specific duration before appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• SMAIL AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1258 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Slrajuddin PARACHA And Other vs MUSTAFA AND ANOTHER1975 PLC 759 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-08-28Read full judgment →
• Slkandar HAYAT vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Collector, D. G.1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 106 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-08-12Read full judgment →
• SIRAJ Alias SAJI vs THS STATE--1975 P Cr. L J 417 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-22Read full judgment →
• SIRAJ alias SAJI vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 417 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-22Read full judgment →
• SIND, KARACHI vs The NATIONAL REFINERY Ltd. KARACHI And 9 Others1975 PLC 105 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-03-06Read full judgment →
• SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION And 2 Other vs STAFF UNION And 21975 PLC 361 · Sindh High Court
  administration of the Stateroad transport corporationindustrial disputeLabour Court jurisdictionaward versus decisionstatutory corporation employeesappealability
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petition filed by the Sind Road Transport Corporation challenging an order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain applications filed by the respondent workers' Union under sections 32 and 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The petitioners contended that Corporation employees were employed in the 'administration of the State' and thereby excluded from the Ordinance under section 1(3), and further argued that the Labour Court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was an unappealable decision rather than an award. The High Court dismissed the petition. It held that 'administration of the State' must be narrowly construed to cover only core executive, regal, or sovereign functions of government, and does not extend to statutory commercial corporations. The Court further held that while an order under section 34 is an unappealable decision, an order disposing of an industrial dispute under section 32 on jurisdictional grounds constitutes an appealable award under the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of a statutory road transport corporation are persons 'employed in the administration of the State' under section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Does an order of a Labour Court dismissing an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 constitute an appealable award or a final unappealable decision?
  • Whether a Labour Court's dismissal of an application relating to an industrial dispute under section 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction amounts to an appealable award?
  Read full judgment →
• Sind Labour Court No. II, KARACHI vs NIZAM AHMED,1975 PLC 579 · Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-05-25Read full judgment →
• SIND EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION AND ANOTHER vs DAWOOD1975 SCMR 343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-04
  social security contributiondefinition of wagesex gratia paymentscivil commotionstatutory interpretationremunerationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the definition of 'wages' under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The respondents, textile mill owners, paid wages and attendance allowances to employees during periods when mills were closed due to civil commotion. The petitioner, Sind Employees Social Security Institution, sought social security contributions on these payments. The respondents refused, arguing the payments were ex gratia, not wages for work done. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondents, holding that 'wages' implies a quid pro quo for services rendered, and since no services were performed during the closure, the payments were not wages. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the interpretation of 'wages' under Section 2(30) of the Ordinance is a question of general public importance and a matter of first impression. The operation of the High Court's order was suspended pending the final hearing of the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'wages' under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 require a quid pro quo of services rendered?
  • Are payments made to employees during periods of mill closure due to civil commotion considered 'wages' for the purpose of calculating social security contributions?
  • Can payments characterized as ex gratia be classified as 'wages' under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
  Read full judgment →
• SIKANDAR vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1229 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-07Read full judgment →
• SIKANDAR AND 2 OTHERSA ccuseds vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 349 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-27Read full judgment →
• SIKANDAR AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 349 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-27Read full judgment →
• SIDDIK vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 353 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Shirimati MOTAL BAI vs AHMAD AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-10
  evacuee propertylife estateinfructuous petitionabatementspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition for special leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a dispute over a residential property previously belonging to Hondumal, involving claims by his widow Shirimati Motal Bai and subsequent transfer of evacuee shares to the respondent Ahmad. The core legal question was whether the petition for special leave to appeal survived the death of the petitioner where her interest was limited to a life estate and her successors were evacuees. The Supreme Court held that the petition had become infructuous due to the death of the petitioner, as her life estate stood extinguished and no cause of action survived in favor of her successors-in-interest. The key principle laid down is that a petition for leave to appeal seeking to protect a purely personal life interest abates and becomes infructuous upon the death of the petitioner when such life estate terminates and the cause of action does not survive.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petition for special leave to appeal become infructuous upon the death of the petitioner holding a life estate in the disputed property?
  • Does a cause of action regarding a life estate survive in favor of successors-in-interest after the death of the life tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• SHER ZAMAN AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1027 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-12Read full judgment →
• SHER MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1346 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-21Read full judgment →
• SHER KHAN Alias MAMMI vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 655 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-20Read full judgment →
• SHER ALI AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1410 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-28Read full judgment →
• Sheikh MUHAMMAD RAFI vs Messrs PAKISTAN PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS1975 PLC 229 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-09-04Read full judgment →
• SHAMSUDDIN vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS- Respondents1975 P Cr. L J 1448 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-18Read full judgment →
• SHAMSUDDIN AND ANOTHER vs Haji KHUDA BAKHSH AND 3 OTHERS1975 SCMR 215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-05-31
  review petitionevacuee propertytransfer of propertymortgagee in possessioncompensation pooltenants' rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a review petition seeking the review of an order dismissing a civil petition for special leave to appeal, which had challenged a Lahore High Court order holding that the respondent, a Muslim mortgagee in possession, was entitled to the transfer of the disputed shop. The core legal question was whether the acquisition of the property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, wiped out the respondent's mortgage and possession, thereby giving the petitioners, who were inducted as tenants, an independent right to transfer. The Supreme Court held that the review petition had no merit, finding that the acquisition of the property free from encumbrances did not affect the respondent's actual physical possession on the prescribed date, and that the petitioners, deriving their possession through the respondent, had no independent locus standi. The key principle laid down is that a tenant inducted by a mortgagee in possession cannot claim an independent right to the transfer of evacuee property in preference to the mortgagee, notwithstanding the subsequent acquisition of the property for the compensation pool.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the acquisition of evacuee property under section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 wipes out a mortgagee's possession for the purpose of property transfer?
  • Can a tenant inducted by a mortgagee claim an independent right to the transfer of evacuee property in preference to the mortgagee?
  • Does the acquisition of property for the compensation pool affect the actual possession held on the prescribed date under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAMSHER ALI vs CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS, Ltd., LYALLPUR , .1975 PLC 595 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-07-16Read full judgment →
• SHAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-Opponent1975 P Cr. L J 293 · Sindh High Court · 1975-02-27Read full judgment →
• SHAKIL AHMAD vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-08
  post-arrest bailsmugglingcriminal investigationevidence sufficiencybail conditionsF.I.R.Customs Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for bail filed by the petitioner, who was arrested in connection with an alleged international smuggling operation involving goods imported under the guise of diplomatic bags. The petitioner was not named in either of the two F.I.Rs registered regarding the incident. The State opposed bail, arguing that the petitioner's handwriting was identified on invoices found within the seized goods and that investigation was ongoing, necessitating his detention to prevent him from absconding or hampering the probe. The Supreme Court examined the material on record and found it insufficient to implicate the petitioner. The Court noted that other individuals involved in the case had already been granted bail and that there was no concrete evidence or witness statement connecting the petitioner to the offences charged. Consequently, the Court held that in the absence of sufficient incriminating material and a credible apprehension of abscondence, the petitioner was entitled to bail. The petition was converted into an appeal, and the petitioner was granted bail subject to specific conditions, including reporting requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Is the mere registration of an F.I.R. without supporting evidence sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  • Can bail be granted when the accused is not named in the F.I.R. and the prosecution fails to produce witness statements implicating them?
  • Does the potential for an ongoing investigation into an international smuggling ring justify the continued detention of an accused if the evidence on record is insufficient?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAHIDUL HAQ alias MOTO vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 409 · Sindh High Court · 1973-01-10Read full judgment →
• SHAHIDUL HAQ Alias MOTO vs THE STATE--1975 P Cr. L J 409 · Sindh High Court · 1973-01-10Read full judgment →
• SHAHID IQBAL & Co., LYALLPUR vs MASOOD YAQOOB ULLAH1975 PLC 168 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-02-07Read full judgment →
• SHAHID ALI vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 179 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-08Read full judgment →
• SHAHBAZ KHAN MOHMAND vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 4 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-26
  Martial Law Regulation 58dismissal from serviceInterim Constitutionlachesmala fidesconstitutional petitionbar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former member of the Provincial Civil Service, challenged his dismissal from service under Martial Law Regulation No. 58 through a Constitution Petition filed before the High Court, which dismissed the petition in limine on the grounds of constitutional bar under Article 281 of the Interim Constitution and laches. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core legal questions concerning the validity of actions taken under Martial Law Regulations, the threshold for pleading mala fides, and the invocation of laches in extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was protected under Article 281 of the Interim Constitution, the allegations of mala fides were vague and unsubstantiated failing the required legal standards, and the petition suffered from unexplained delays amounting to laches. The Court laid down the principles that allegations of mala fides must be pleaded with particularity without permitting roving inquiries, and that extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction can be lawfully withheld on the ground of laches.

  Questions settled

  • Whether actions taken under Martial Law Regulation No. 58 are protected under Article 281 of the Interim Constitution?
  • What are the evidentiary requirements for pleading mala fides against governmental actions?
  • Can a High Court refuse to exercise constitutional jurisdiction on the ground of laches?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAH NAWAZ vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 1173 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-07Read full judgment →
• SHAH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 587 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-27Read full judgment →
• SHAH ALI vs THE STATE-1975 P Cr. L J 225 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-21Read full judgment →
• SHAH ALI Convict vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 225 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-21Read full judgment →
• SHAFIQ TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., KARACHI vs MAZDOOR UNION1975 PLC 559 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-04-08Read full judgment →
• SHAFI TRANSPORT Co., KARACHI vs NAZIR AHMAD1975 PLC 572 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-02-11Read full judgment →
• SHAFI TRANSPORT Co., KARACHI vs A. JABBAR1975 PLC 503 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-02-11Read full judgment →
• SHAFI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE-Opponent1975 P Cr. L J 293 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-27Read full judgment →
• SHAFI ARSHAD vs PAKISTAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, KARACHI AND OTHERS1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 108 · Administrative Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
• SHABBIR AHMAD vs Messrs MAMA TRANSPORT, KARACHI1975 PLC 457 · Labour Court · 1972-10-27Read full judgment →
• Sh. RASHID AHMAD 1 vs Mst. ZAINAB BIBI1975 PLC 531 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-02-14Read full judgment →
• Sh. MUHAMMAD RASHID vs Mst. SHARAF SULTANA1975 P Cr. L J 678 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-19Read full judgment →
• Sh. MUHAMMAD HASAN & Co. vs Mian MAHMOOD AHMAD KHAN1975 SCMR 355 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-21
  ejectmenttenant defaultrent restrictionimplied contractlump sum rent paymentdiscretion of Rent Controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition filed by a tenant challenging an order of ejectment passed against him on the ground of default in the payment of rent. While the Rent Controller initially exercised discretion in the tenant's favor upon finding that the default was not deliberate, the appellate/High Court forum reversed this determination. The core legal question was whether an alleged practice of paying rent in lump sums every six to twelve months could constitute an implied contract overriding statutory default provisions. The Supreme Court upheld the decision against the tenant, noting that the alleged practice was neither properly pleaded in the written statement nor proven by the evidence. The Court held that, in any event, any alleged implied contract or practice contrary to Section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 cannot prevail over the express statutory command. To claim protection under Section 13, a tenant must strictly comply with its terms and avoid falling within the mischief of Section 13(2). Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a practice or implied contract regarding payment of rent prevail over the express provisions of Section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Can a tenant claim protection under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 if their conduct falls within the scope of default under Section 13(2)?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. HIDAYAT ULLAH vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (POLICY), PUNJAB1975 SCMR 161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-22
  special leave to appealKatchi Abadievacuee landbrick kilnretrospective enforcementsocial justicesettlement commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition regarding the transfer of a brick kiln and the subsequent declaration of a portion of its land as Katchi Abadi. The core legal question involves the validity of the declaration and resumption of land under the Transfer of Evacuee Land Katchi Abadi Ordinance No. XX of 1972, following a notification by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the legislation correctly implements social justice policies to provide shelter to the homeless, that its retrospective enforcement is legally sound, and that no constitutional violation or breach of the statutory scheme was established. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principles laid down include the validity of retrospective social welfare legislation and the overriding effect of the Transfer of Evacuee Land Katchi Abadi Ordinance No. XX of 1972.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Transfer of Evacuee Land Katchi Abadi Ordinance 1972 can be enforced retrospectively?
  • Does the declaration of land as Katchi Abadi under the Transfer of Evacuee Land Katchi Abadi Ordinance 1972 violate constitutional provisions?
  • Can a transferee challenge the resumption of land under section 4 of the Transfer of Evacuee Land Katchi Abadi Ordinance 1972 without showing a violation of the statutory scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• Seth AKBAR ALI AND ANOTHER vs SIRICHAND AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 704 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-30Read full judgment →
• Seth AKBAR ALI AND Another vs SIRICHAND AND ANOTHER-1975 P Cr. L J 704 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-30Read full judgment →
• SERVICES HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION vs The REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE _Punjab1975 PLC I0 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• SERVICE, HYDERABAD vs HUSSAIN BAKHSH1975 PLC 178 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-05-15Read full judgment →