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.
- SERVICE vs S MAHMOOD ALI1975 PLC 708 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-07-09Read full judgment →
- SARWAR AND 6 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1221 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-04Read full judgment →
- SARFRAZ vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 747 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-25Read full judgment →
- SARFRAZ AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 552 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-07Read full judgment →
- SARFRAZ AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 552 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-07Read full judgment →
- SARDAR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs GHULAM JAN KHAN1975 SCMR 512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment dismissing a second appeal in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the limitation period for filing a pre-emption suit commenced from the date of the original registered sale deed or from the date of a subsequent mutation entry, given that the original sale had been subject to prior litigation and challenges regarding its validity under Martial Law Regulation 64. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent mutation was merely an implementation of the original registered sale deed, which had remained intact throughout the history of litigation. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' findings that the limitation period began from the date of the original sale, rendering the pre-emption suit filed years later as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that a mutation entry made to give effect to a prior registered sale deed does not constitute a fresh sale for the purposes of calculating the limitation period for a pre-emption suit.
Questions settled- Does a mutation entry made to implement a prior registered sale deed constitute a fresh sale for the purpose of calculating the limitation period for a pre-emption suit?
- When does the limitation period for a pre-emption suit commence if the underlying sale was effected by a registered sale deed?
- Can a mutation entry be considered a new transaction if the original sale deed was previously challenged in litigation?
- SARDAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 825 · Sindh High Court · 1972-12-08Read full judgment →
- Sardar HABIB ULLAH KHAN vs PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged an order of the High Court of West Pakistan, which upheld the government's cancellation of an order granting the appellant proprietary rights in Lamberdari land. The appellant, a Lamberdar, had been granted permission to purchase the land in 1953 and deposited the price. However, the government later cancelled this permission in 1962, citing the appellant's ineligibility as he was not a hereditary Lamberdar. The core legal question was whether the government could unilaterally cancel the permission to purchase and whether the appellant had acquired full ownership rights. The Supreme Court held that under Section 15 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, a purchaser of government land remains a tenant until all conditions of sale are fulfilled. Since the appellant failed to meet the essential condition of being a hereditary Lamberdar, he never acquired proprietary rights, and the government was competent to correct the mistake and recall the permission. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, noting that the appellant remained a tenant and the cancellation was lawful.
Questions settled- Does a purchaser of government land acquire proprietary rights before fulfilling all conditions of sale?
- Can the government recall an order granting permission to purchase land if the purchaser fails to meet the eligibility criteria?
- Under Section 15 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912, what is the status of a purchaser who has paid the price but failed to meet other conditions of the grant?
- Sardar ABDUL AZ1Z vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, which accepted a criminal revision petition and directed a further inquiry into a complaint against the petitioner, a police official. The core legal question involved whether the High Court was justified in interfering with concurrent orders of subordinate judicial authorities that had dismissed the private complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the High Court interfered on proper grounds and that sufficient material existed to issue process against the petitioner, thereby upholding the High Court's direction for further inquiry. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that interference by an appellate or revisional court with concurrent findings on the dismissal of a complaint is warranted when subordinate authorities misread the evidence and sufficient material exists to warrant the issuance of process.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in revision with an order dismissing a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When does sufficient material exist to warrant the issuance of process against an accused in a criminal complaint?
- Whether subordinate authorities' appreciation of evidence can be overturned if they have misread the record?
- SAQIB ALI KHAN vs The SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT And Others Of 1972,1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 32 · Punjab Appellate Tribunal · 1973-01-18Read full judgment →
- SANGI MARMAR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arose from an order of the Peshawar High Court refusing bail to two petitioners facing criminal charges. The petitioners sought bail primarily on the ground of false implication, supported by a plea of alibi based on police records indicating they were already in custody at the time of the alleged incident. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the significant delay in commitment proceedings and the strength of their alibi. The Supreme Court observed that the commitment proceedings had been pending since September 1973, despite the court's earlier directions to separate the cases of absconding co-accused to expedite the trial. Finding that the inordinate delay in concluding proceedings constituted a valid ground for relief, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail. The Court established the principle that prolonged, unjustified delays in commitment proceedings justify the grant of bail, while clarifying that the trial court retains the authority to cancel bail if the accused fail to cooperate with the investigating agency or if circumstances warrant such action upon commitment.
Questions settled- Does an inordinate delay in commitment proceedings justify the grant of bail to an accused?
- Can a trial court cancel bail granted by a superior court if the accused fails to cooperate with the investigating agency?
- Does the existence of a strong alibi supported by police records constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- SANDOZ (PAKISTAN) Ltd., HYDERABAD vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1975 PLC 456 · Labour Court · 1972-10-30Read full judgment →
- SAMABO vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an accused facing trial before a Special Tribunal constituted under the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1971, sought leave to appeal against an order of the High Court at Karachi. The High Court had refused bail, ruling that it lacked the competence to admit an accused to bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in cases triable by a Special Tribunal established under the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1971. The petitioner challenged this interpretation, noting that the Supreme Court had already granted leave in similar petitions to examine the correctness of this legal position. The Supreme Court, observing that the issue was already pending consideration in connected appeals, granted leave to appeal in the instant petition. Furthermore, the Court exercised its discretion to admit the petitioner to bail pending the final adjudication of the appeal, subject to the furnishing of a surety bond to the satisfaction of the Nazir of the High Court. The matter was ordered to be heard alongside the connected appeals to resolve the question of the High Court's jurisdiction regarding bail in such special proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a High Court have the competence to grant bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to an accused facing trial before a Special Tribunal constituted under the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance 1971?
- Can the Supreme Court grant bail to an accused pending the final adjudication of an appeal regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant bail?
- SALIM BUTT AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1075 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-18Read full judgment →
- SALEEM AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1925 SCMR 306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which dismissed the petitioners' application for bail. The petitioners were facing trial before a Special Tribunal constituted under the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance for alleged encroachment on forest land and the wrongful felling of saplings. The High Court had declined to grant bail, holding that it lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain bail applications for persons undergoing trial before such a Special Tribunal. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the core legal question involved the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant bail to individuals facing trial before a Special Tribunal established under the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance. Finding that this issue had already been raised in other similar cases where leave to appeal had been granted, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in the present matter. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim bail previously granted to the petitioners while directing that the proceedings before the Special Tribunal should continue.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to grant bail to persons undergoing trial before a Special Tribunal constituted under the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance?
- Can interim bail be confirmed pending the determination of the High Court's jurisdiction to grant bail in cases before a Special Tribunal?
- SALABAT AND 4 OTHERS vs THS STATE1975 P Cr. L J 451 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- SALABAT AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 451 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-11Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD MIR AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 532 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-08Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Sajjad Hussain against the judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, which had modified his conviction and sentence under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The petitioner was convicted for misappropriating funds collected from out-door patient fees while working as a Clerk at a Rural Health Centre. The core legal question concerned the burden of proof regarding the admitted entrustment of funds and the defense's claim that the money was spent on contingency expenses. The Supreme Court held that once the entrustment of the amount is admitted by the accused, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that the funds were lawfully spent on contingency expenses and not reimbursed, which the petitioner failed to do. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings and conviction by the courts below.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof shift to the accused to account for entrusted funds once such entrustment is admitted?
- Can an accused escape liability for criminal breach of trust by claiming unverified contingency expenses without proof of reimbursement practices?
- SAJJAD AHMAD SIDDIQUI AND OTHERS vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court of West Pakistan concerning a seniority dispute among Lower Division Clerks in the Armed Forces Headquarters (AFHQ). The appellants, who were appointed as temporary clerks before Independence, competed and passed the Federal Public Service Commission Examination held in India in May 1947. They claimed seniority over respondents under the Cabinet Secretariat Office Memorandum dated March 15, 1948, asserting that passing the examination qualified them as 'eligibles' entitled to permanent vacancies ahead of non-qualified staff.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal on two grounds. First, on the merits, although the Memorandum had statutory force, it required candidates to be nominated by the Cabinet Secretariat based on examination results for specific permanent vacancies; as the appellants were never so nominated, they were not covered by the 1937 Rules read with the 1948 Memorandum. Second, the petition filed in 1959 was barred by laches due to an unexplained delay of nine years after the rejection of their representations, which could not be unsettled after a quarter of a century.
Questions settled- Whether passing the Federal Public Service Commission examination automatically entitles a temporary employee to seniority and permanent absorption in the absence of a formal nomination for a permanent vacancy?
- Whether repeatedly filing unstatutory representations prevents a writ petition from being dismissed on the ground of laches?
- Whether the Cabinet Secretariat Office Memorandum dated 15th March 1948 has statutory force governing seniority matters of ministerial staff?
- SAIJAD MIR AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 532 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-08Read full judgment →
- SAID MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1045 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-19Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR SHAH vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Safdar Shah against the dismissal of his pre-trial bail application by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner was committed under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Khurshid. The core legal question concerned the availability of bail after a commitment order where prosecution witnesses allegedly did not incriminate the accused. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the petitioner had already been committed to stand trial before the Sessions Court, the proper course of action was for the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court directly for bail. The petition was dismissed with the observation that the Sessions Court should decide any fresh bail application uninfluenced by the observations previously made by the High Court.
Questions settled- What is the proper forum for a bail application after an accused has been committed to stand trial before the Sessions Court?
- Will observations made by the High Court in a bail petition influence a subsequent bail application before the Sessions Court?
- SAFDAR ALI vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 448 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-24Read full judgment →
- SAF DAR. ALI Convict vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 448 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-24Read full judgment →
- SAEEDULLAH vs PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION, KARACHI1975 PLC 472 · Labour Court · 1972-10-17Read full judgment →
- SAEED AHMAD SHEIKH vs SECRETARY, C. & W. D. DEPARTMENT, LAHORE And 131975 PLC [C.S.T.] 78 · Punjab Appellate Tribunal · 1973-12-11Read full judgment →
- SAEEDAN BIBI vs ALI HUSSAIN1975 SCMR 261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which had set aside an order striking off a tenant's defense in an ejectment proceeding. The core legal question was whether a tenant's failure to deposit the exact amount of rent as directed by a Rent Controller, due to a misinterpretation of the order by their counsel, constitutes wilful default warranting the striking off of the defense under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the tenant acted in good faith based on legal advice. The Court affirmed that a tenant should not be penalized for a procedural shortfall resulting from a bona fide misinterpretation of a court order by their counsel. The key principle laid down is that where a default in rent deposit is not wilful but arises from a genuine error or reliance on incorrect legal advice, the court retains the discretion to condone the delay and refuse to strike off the defense.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's failure to deposit the exact rent amount due to a counsel's misinterpretation of a court order constitute wilful default?
- Can a Rent Controller strike off a tenant's defense for a minor shortfall in rent deposit caused by bona fide error?
- Is a court justified in condoning a delay in rent deposit where the tenant acted on the advice of counsel?
- SADIQ AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1021 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-30Read full judgment →
- SABOO AND 6 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 227 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-04Read full judgment →
- SABIR vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Opponents1975 P Cr. L J 222 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-08Read full judgment →
- SABIR vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER---Opponents1975 P Cr. L J 222 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-08Read full judgment →
- SABIR ALI AND 3 Others vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 450 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-16Read full judgment →
- SABIR ALI AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 450 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-16Read full judgment →
- S. M. SIDDIQ vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1057 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-11Read full judgment →
- S. A. RIZVI vs PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT No. III, KARACHI1975 PLC 755 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-07-05Read full judgment →
- S. A. H. NAQVI vs Messrs P. I. A. CORPORATION, KARACHI And Another1975 PLC 403 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-01-05Read full judgment →
- RUSTAM G. IRANI vs JAVED QURESHIRespon dent1975 SCMR 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from an order passed by the Rent Controller under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, fixing the tentative rent of a shop. The core legal question was whether contentions regarding res judicata, the interpretation of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and statutory protection limits were material for the determination of tentative rent under section 13(6) of the Ordinance during eviction proceedings. The Supreme Court held that such complicated questions are not material to the provisional stage of fixing tentative rent under section 13(6), which is designed merely to set an interim deposit based on available material such as municipal assessments, leaving substantive issues to be proved during the main trial. The key principle laid down is that at the stage of fixing tentative rent under section 13(6), the Rent Controller exercises a summary discretion to secure arrears and future rent based on prima facie evidence like municipal valuations, and complex legal defenses or claims of res judicata cannot be used to preempt this interim determination but must be agitated during the final adjudication.
Questions settled- Whether complex legal questions such as res judicata are material for the determination of tentative rent under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Can a transferee automatically increase the rent payable by a statutory tenant according to successive municipal assessment revisions under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, at the tentative rent stage?
- What is the proper scope of the Rent Controller's discretion in fixing tentative rent under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- RUKANUDDIN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 189 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-16Read full judgment →
- ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD ISLAM1975 PLC 494 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1971-03-22Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 652 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-29Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD Accused vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 652 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-29Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LAHORE , .1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 117 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-10-14Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI AND ANOTHER vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), LAHORE1975 SCMR 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing their review petition, which sought to overturn the cancellation of an allotment made on claim form No. 2177 on the ground of fraud and false representation. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the review petition after finding that a crucial document relied upon by the petitioners contained unexplained overwriting and was not genuine. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that upon personal examination of the application, it indeed contained overwriting and lacked authenticity, thereby justifying the dismissal of the review petition by the High Court. The key principle laid down is that appellate and constitutional courts may examine disputed documentary evidence to determine its genuineness, and where material alterations or overwriting remain unexplained, findings regarding lack of authenticity and dismissal of review will not be interfered with.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing a review petition based on a finding that a crucial supporting application contained unexplained overwriting and lacked genuineness?
- Can the Supreme Court examine original documents to verify findings of fact regarding the authenticity of a document recorded by the High Court?
- RAZIQDINO vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 590 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-12Read full judgment →
- RAZIQDINO vs THE STATE--1975 P Cr. L J 590 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-12Read full judgment →
- RAUF AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L 1 594 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-20Read full judgment →
- RAUF AND Another vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER---1975 P Cr. L J 594 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-20Read full judgment →
- RASOOL BUX AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1379 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-07Read full judgment →
- Rao ZIAUDDIN vs MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the allotment of agricultural land in District Sahiwal under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Scheme. The central legal question involved determining the entitlement to surplus land that had been cancelled from the names of specific respondents, contested between the appellant and respondent No. 1. Following various administrative orders and previous High Court interventions regarding the entitlement of other claimants, the dispute narrowed to whether the appellant was entitled to retain land that had not been part of the original reservation or cancellation affecting those claimants. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court. The Court remanded the case to the Rehabilitation Commissioner with the direction to restore the allotment of land to the appellant, specifically identifying those parcels that were neither reserved for nor cancelled from the names of the other respondents. The holding establishes that an allottee is entitled to retain land that falls outside the scope of disputed or cancelled allotments of other parties.
Questions settled- Is an allottee entitled to retain land that was neither reserved for nor cancelled from the names of other claimants?
- Does a Rehabilitation Commissioner have the authority to review an order of a predecessor regarding land allotment?
- What is the scope of a Rehabilitation Commissioner's power when implementing a High Court writ regarding land entitlement?
- Rao MEHRBAN KHAN vs SHAH MUHAMMAD1975 SCMR 465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's second appeal regarding a watercourse dispute. The petitioner contested an order by the Divisional Canal Officer allowing the respondent to restore a watercourse, arguing it violated the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. The core legal questions were whether the High Court erred in disposing of the appeal on merits without hearing the petitioner's counsel, and whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the pre-existence of the watercourse were vitiated by the admission of an irrigation plan and the exclusion of a Canal Zilladar's preliminary testimony. The Supreme Court held that judicial acts are presumed to be performed correctly, rejecting the petitioner's affidavit claiming he was denied a hearing. Furthermore, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of fact, ruling that the irrigation plan was properly admitted and that the Zilladar's preliminary evidence did not contradict the respondent's case. The principle established is that concurrent findings of fact based on admissible evidence will not be disturbed in second appeal, and official judicial records regarding proceedings are presumed accurate.
Questions settled- Can a court's record of proceedings be challenged by a subsequent affidavit from a party?
- Does the restoration of a pre-existing watercourse require the same statutory formalities as the construction of a new watercourse under the Canal and Drainage Act 1873?
- Is a finding of fact based on an irrigation plan vitiated if the document was admitted without objection at the trial stage?
- Rana PHOOL MUHAMMAD KHAN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners-appellants, including Members of the Provincial Assembly, Advocates, and Police Officers, sought special leave to appeal against an order of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court which refused to confirm their interim bail. The case arose from a delayed First Information Report (FIR) alleging dacoity and trespass, which the appellants claimed was politically motivated. The Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and observed that the interim bail had been enjoyed by the appellants for nearly seven months without any complaint of abuse. The Court held that the initial factors justifying the grant of interim bail, including the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and political rivalry, remained sound. Given that the investigation was incomplete and no further incriminating evidence had surfaced, the Court ruled that the interim bail merited confirmation. The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were directed to remain on bail subject to joining the investigation.
Questions settled- Whether interim bail enjoyed for a significant period without any abuse of the privilege should ordinarily be confirmed?
- Does an inordinate delay in lodging a First Information Report, coupled with political rivalry, constitute a sound ground for granting or confirming bail?
- Can interim bail be confirmed if the police investigation is incomplete and no additional incriminating evidence has been unearthed during the period the accused was on bail?
- Rana GULZAR AHMAD vs COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION And 13 Others1975 PLC (C.S.T.) 144 · Civil Services Tribunal · 1972-12-13Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1210 · Sindh High Court · 1974-07-09Read full judgment →
- RAJBA AND 8 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 482 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-16Read full judgment →
- RAJBA AND 8 OTHERS Convicts vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 482 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-16Read full judgment →
- Raja MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs ABDUL KARIM AND 5 OTHERS1975 P Cr. L J 390 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-30Read full judgment →
- RAILWAYS, KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF1975 PLC 602 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-03-06Read full judgment →
- RAHMATULLAH vs Messrs PENICILLIN FACTORY Application No. MI-42 Of 1975_(Pb.), )—1975 PLC 620 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-06-16Read full judgment →
- RAFIQUE AHMED vs Messrs MEHRAN SUGAR MILLS Ltd., TANDO ALLAHYAR1975 PLC 400 · Industrial Court · 1973-01-22Read full judgment →
- RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS Co. Ltd., LYALLPUR vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1975 PLC 638 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-08-13Read full judgment →
- QURBAN ALI vs THE STATE-1975 P Cr. L J 1202 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-23Read full judgment →
- QUDRATULLAH vs AHAMAD NOOR Kamani1975 PLC 474 · Labour Court · 1972-10-18Read full judgment →
- Qazi MAZHAR HUSAIN AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1375 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-24Read full judgment →
- QAMRUDDIN vs Messrs DA WOOD HOSIERY MILLS, KARACHI1975 PLC 834 · Labour Court · 1975-09-30Read full judgment →
- QAMARUDDIN vs MANAGER INDUS JUTE MILLS Ltd., GHARO1975 PLC 388 · Industrial Court · 1973-01-04Read full judgment →
- QAMAR DIN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 133 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-21Read full judgment →
- QAMAR D1N vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 133 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-21Read full judgment →
- QAMAR ALI vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 797 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-15Read full judgment →
- QAISER MEHMUD vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 103 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-19Read full judgment →
- QAIM AND Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1434 · Sindh High Court · 1972-05-03Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE vs ROAD TRANSPORT1975 PLC 669 · Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1972-09-07Read full judgment →
- PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE1975 PLC 818 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges an order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and an award of the Industrial Court, which had set aside the dismissal of a transport conductor. The core legal questions were whether the dismissal violated Section 30 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, by failing to obtain the Industrial Court's permission during the pendency of industrial disputes, and whether the failure to supply the enquiry report to the employee violated the principles of natural justice and the relevant Standing Orders. The Court held that the dismissal was invalid because the employer failed to obtain the requisite permission from the Industrial Court during the pendency of industrial disputes. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, an employer is mandatorily required to provide the employee with a copy of the enquiry report and a second show-cause notice to respond to adverse findings before finalizing a dismissal. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, upholding the reinstatement order.
Questions settled- Does an employer require permission from the Industrial Court to dismiss a workman during the pendency of industrial disputes?
- Is an employer legally obligated to provide an employee with a copy of the enquiry report before passing a dismissal order?
- Does the failure to issue a second show-cause notice regarding adverse findings in an enquiry report invalidate a dismissal order?
- PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL SUPPLIES CORPORATION vs AM AN AT ALI And Another1975 PLC 14 · Labour Court · 1974-02-25Read full judgment →
- PUBLIX INDUSTRIES Ltd., KARACHI vs WORKERS' UNION1975 PLC 731 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-06-13Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through Collector, Muzaffargarh vs HAQ NAWAZ1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 94 · Administrative Tribunal · 1975-01-07Read full judgment →
- PROF. ABDUL QAYYUM QURESHI vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB ETC.1975 SCMR 457 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Letters Patent Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's Constitution Petition regarding the calculation of his statutory tenure as Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's initial officiating appointment from 1st January 1971 should be counted towards his four-year statutory tenure under section 14 of the West Pakistan (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore) Ordinance 1961, or whether the tenure commenced only from the subsequent notification dated 16th August 1971 specifying his terms and conditions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that substance must prevail over form in statutory appointments; because the petitioner was appointed against a regular existing vacancy and not a temporary one under subsection (3), his four-year tenure commenced from the date he originally assumed charge on 1st January 1971. The key principle laid down is that for statutory appointments, the true nature of the appointment is determined by the substance of the vacancy and the surrounding facts rather than mere terminology or delayed specification of terms and conditions.
Questions settled- Does an officiating appointment to a statutory post count towards the statutory tenure of office if made against a regular existing vacancy?
- Can the substance of a statutory appointment override the terminology used in an initial notification?
- When does the statutory tenure of a Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education commence under section 14 of the West Pakistan (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore) Ordinance 1961?
- PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. III ! vs LABOUR REPRESENTATIVE, KARACHI , ,1975 PLC 752 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-03-06Read full judgment →
- PREMIER CLOTH MILLS Ltd., LYALLPUR vs REHMAT ALI1975 PLC 646 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-04-27Read full judgment →
- PLASTICRAFTER Ltd., KARACHI vs WORKERS' UNION1975 PLC 636 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-04-04Read full judgment →
- PIYARE MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 816 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-23Read full judgment →
- PIR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs COLLECTOR, KARACHI AND 4 OTHERS1975 SCMR 234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute regarding the partition of land, specifically whether a decree for partition alters the nature of a 'joint holding' before actual partition by metes and bounds occurs, and whether such partition violated the prohibition in Paragraph 23 of Martial Law Regulation 64. The Court held that a decree for partition, which merely specifies shares, does not alter the nature of a holding as a 'joint holding' until the Collector or their subordinate has physically partitioned the land by metes and bounds. Consequently, the holding remained joint until the actual partition occurred. However, the Court declined to interfere with the partition, noting that it had been executed six years prior, the parties had assumed physical possession, and the record lacked necessary information regarding the parties' other land holdings to determine if the partition truly violated the 'subsistence holding' criteria of the Regulation. The Court emphasized that undoing the long-standing physical partition would cause extreme hardship and that the appellants failed to seek timely intervention. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a decree for partition of land by itself alter the nature of a joint holding before actual partition by metes and bounds is carried out?
- Is a holding considered a joint holding until the Collector or a gazetted subordinate has physically partitioned it in accordance with a decree?
- Can the Supreme Court decline to interfere with a partition that has been in effect for several years even if the legal position regarding the prohibition of such partition is contested?
- PIR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs COLLECTOR, KARACHI AND 4 OT'HERS1975 SCMR 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a partition decree passed by the Sind Chief Court on December 1, 1954, concerning agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the suit-land remained a joint holding after the shares of the parties were defined in the partition decree, and whether its subsequent partition by the Collector was barred by Paragraph 23 of Martial Law Regulation 64. The Supreme Court held that land continues to be a joint holding until actual partition by metes and bounds is carried out on the ground by the Collector pursuant to Section 54 and Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the mere passing of a decree specifying shares does not alter the nature of the holding. However, the Court declined to interfere with the partition because the parties had already assumed separate physical possession for over six years, and undoing the arrangement would cause extreme hardship, especially given the absence of record regarding other landholdings necessary to determine the applicability of the subsistence holding provisions. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a holding cease to be joint upon the mere passing of a preliminary decree for partition specifying the shares of the parties?
- At what point does a joint holding cease to be joint when a partition decree is executed through the Collector?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a long-standing physical partition of land that has remained in separate possession of the parties for several years?
- PIONEER TRADING Co., KARACHI vs WORKERS UNION1975 PLC 316 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-20Read full judgment →
- PINYO AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1304 · Sindh High Court · 1974-12-23Read full judgment →
- PEHLWAN AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1096 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-17Read full judgment →
- PAROO AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 540 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-11Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN vs Lt.-Col IBNE HASSAN1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 58 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1974-09-26Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN TEXTILE WORKERS' UNION, HYDERABAD vs TEXTILE CORPORATION OF1975 PLC 655 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-06-14Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN SECURITY PRINTING CORPORATION Ltd., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES'1975 PLC 96 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-03-21Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN RADIO HOUSE Ltd., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1975 PLC 126 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-08-06Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN OXYGEN Ltd., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1975 PLC 35 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-04-22Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN Ltd., KARACHI vs STAFF UNION1975 PLC 564 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-03-27Read full judgment →
- PAK STANVAC PETROLEUM PROJECT EMPLOYEES UNION vs WASIM A. ZUBERI1975 PLC 523 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-02-05Read full judgment →
- PAK NEWS Ltd. vs SIND LABOUR COURT No. 2, KARACHI And 2 Others1975 PLC 802 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-22Read full judgment →
- P. W. RAILWAY, LAHORE vs QUTUBUDDIN1975 PLC 310 · Sindh High Court · 1974-09-17Read full judgment →
- OIL &.GAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KARACHI, THROUGH ITS CHIEF1975 SCMR 485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute between the Oil & Gas Development Corporation and its Collective Bargaining Agent regarding the implementation of a settlement agreement dated February 7, 1970. The core legal question was whether the Corporation could rely on Fundamental Rules to deny employees a 10% monetary benefit in pay fixation as stipulated in clause 4(b) of the agreement, and whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the grievance. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Labour Court and the High Court, holding that the Fundamental Rules were inapplicable to the specific terms of the settlement agreement. The Court affirmed that the breach of the agreement constituted a continuing wrong, thereby rejecting arguments of laches and estoppel. Furthermore, the Court clarified that section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, regarding the interpretation of an Award, was inapplicable as no Award existed in this case. The Court affirmed the Labour Court's jurisdiction to enforce the agreement's terms, dismissing the Corporation's petition.
Questions settled- Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute regarding the implementation of a settlement agreement under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can an employer rely on Fundamental Rules to override the specific pay fixation terms agreed upon in a settlement with a Collective Bargaining Agent?
- Does a breach of a settlement agreement regarding pay fixation constitute a continuing wrong for the purposes of laches and estoppel?
- Is the Labour Tribunal the exclusive forum for disputes involving the interpretation of a settlement agreement where no formal Award exists?
- NUR MUHAMMAD Alias NURA vs THE STATE---1975 P Cr. L J 252 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-20Read full judgment →
- NUR MUHAMMAD alias NURA Convict vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 252 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-20Read full judgment →
- NUR AND 6 OTHERSs vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 641 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-24Read full judgment →