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.
- NUR AND 6 Others vs THE STATE--1975 P Cr. L J 641 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-24Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs S. E. MECHANICAL CIRCLE, MOGHULPURA1975 P L CtC.S.T.l 116 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-10-22Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION1975 PLC 490 · Labour Court · 1972-03-07Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD ETC. vs ABDUL GHAFOOR ETC1975 SCMR 196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed with a delay of 147 days against an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a review petition concerning evacuee property. The core legal question involved the validity of wills executed regarding evacuee property and the jurisdiction of civil courts to adjudicate disputes concerning the same. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that civil courts lack jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding evacuee property, rendering the plaintiff's suit and subsequent review application incompetent. Consequently, the petition was dismissed both on the ground of being barred by limitation and on merits, affirming that no valid claim or decree can be sustained in respect of evacuee property through civil courts.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to decide a dispute regarding evacuee property?
- Can a time-barred petition for special leave to appeal be entertained without sufficient cause?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction and death sentence of the petitioners for the murder of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in maintaining the convictions based on the testimony of two eye-witnesses and supporting circumstantial evidence, despite the acquittal of co-accused persons. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly relied upon the eye-witnesses, whose presence at the scene was unchallenged and whose testimony was corroborated by medical evidence, the recovery of incriminating weapons (including a blood-stained hammer), and the petitioners' own admissions regarding their presence at the scene. The Court affirmed that the evidence was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that where eye-witness testimony is natural, consistent, and corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence and the accused's own admissions, it provides a sufficient basis for conviction, even if other co-accused are acquitted due to lack of specific corroboration.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on eye-witness testimony if the testimony is corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of weapons?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused persons necessarily invalidate the conviction of remaining accused persons if independent evidence supports the latter's guilt?
- Is an admission of presence at the scene of the crime by the accused in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a relevant factor in corroborating prosecution evidence?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Alias NOORUL vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1025 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to quash proceedings initiated against the applicant under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate upon a report by the Station House Officer. The core legal questions involved the legality of initiating proceedings and issuing process without first complying with the mandatory requirement of passing an order under section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether a vague police report citing general reputation and past crime numbers without specific instances or local witnesses sustains such proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the proceedings were void ab initio and misconceived due to procedural irregularities and a defective police report, noting that a belated order under section 112 cannot cure initial defects. The court laid down the principle that the liberty of a subject cannot be jeopardized on vague police reports, and mandatory statutory procedures under preventive provisions must be strictly adhered to.
Questions settled- Whether proceedings initiated under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a prior or contemporaneous order under section 112 are void ab initio?
- Can a belated order under section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cure the initial illegality of proceedings?
- Does a police report lacking specific instances of criminal acts and local witnesses justify initiating preventive proceedings under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- NOOR AHMED QADRI vs JAMIL AHMED AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 75 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-20Read full judgment →
- NOOR AHMAD vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER1975 SCMR 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is directed against an order of the High Court of West Pakistan, which dismissed a Constitution petition challenging a decision setting aside the transfer of an evacuee building to the appellant. The core legal question was whether the property was lawfully disposed of by public auction or improperly by private negotiation, and whether the revisional authority exercised jurisdiction lawfully. The Supreme Court held that the record clearly established that the property was disposed of by a valid second auction at the revised reserve price, bringing the transfer within the purview of the relevant statutory provisions regarding auctions. Furthermore, the revisional order was passed without lawful authority as the statutory time and procedural limits for summoning records had expired. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in refusing relief on the assumption that the transfer was illegal. The appeal was accordingly accepted, the impugned orders of the High Court and the Settlement Commissioner set aside, and the original appellate order upholding the transfer restored.
Questions settled- Whether a property transferred through a second auction at a revised reserve price constitutes a valid disposal by auction rather than by private negotiation?
- Can a revisional order passed without jurisdiction be sustained on the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be used to perpetuate an injustice?
- Did the Settlement Commissioner possess the requisite revisional powers under the applicable amending ordinances when the records were summoned beyond the prescribed time limit?
- NISAR AHMAL) alias IRSHAD AHMAD vs YAQUB AND 10 OTHER1975 SCMR 135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, Muslim mortgagees of agricultural land in India, held temporary allotments of land in Pakistan. Under the prevailing Settlement Scheme, they were ineligible for permanent transfer and were required to surrender the land for allotment to entitled claimants. Their allotment was cancelled on April 4, 1962, and the land was transferred to the respondents. Shortly thereafter, on April 11, 1962, new instructions were issued allowing such mortgagees to purchase land. The petitioners sought restitution, which was denied by settlement authorities, the High Court, and subsequently the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could claim the benefit of the new instructions retrospectively to invalidate the transfer of land already vested in the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners had no vested right to the land at the time of cancellation and that the respondents, having acquired permanent ownership under the Land Settlement Act, could not be divested of their rights. The Court affirmed that administrative instructions cannot be applied retrospectively to jeopardize vested proprietary rights lawfully acquired by third parties.
Questions settled- Can administrative instructions issued under a settlement scheme be applied retrospectively to invalidate land allotments already finalized?
- Does a temporary allottee of agricultural land possess a vested right to claim permanent transfer if the eligibility criteria change after the land has been allotted to another entitled claimant?
- Can the court interfere with the permanent proprietary rights of respondents once land has been settled under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- NISAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1179 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-05Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER-1975 P Cr. L J 400 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-17Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD AND OTHERS vs FAZAL MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioners regarding a dispute over the right of inheritance to a deceased right-holder, Karam Dad, who died in 1953. The core legal question involves whether the petitioners were afforded a proper opportunity to produce evidence during proceedings before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner after a remand, and whether a factual determination regarding survivorship could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was right to decline interference, as the question of whether the sister survived the deceased is essentially one of fact decided by settlement authorities upon material produced, and records showed the petitioner was present and failed to produce evidence when asked. Furthermore, the plea of limitation against the initial appeal could not be entertained in the absence of the relevant order and because it was not urged before the forums below. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere under writ jurisdiction with a concurrent finding of fact by settlement authorities regarding inheritance?
- Can a plea of limitation be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court without placing the relevant foundational order on record or raising it before the lower forums?
- NIGAH ALI SHAH AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 38 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-23Read full judgment →
- NIGAH ALI SHAH AND ANOTHER Convicts vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 38 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-23Read full judgment →
- NIAMATULLAH KHAN vs PUNJAB PROVINCE Through Collector, Multan District1975 PLC [C.S.T.] I0 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-08-13Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD, INSPECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE. vs Mst. SULTANA BIBI AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the transfer of an evacuee house in Burewala, Multan, which was under departmental allotment to the appellant, a government servant, since 1959. The core legal question was whether an allotment made by a government department, where the property was placed at its disposal, constitutes an allotment by a 'competent authority' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and whether the appellant was entitled to the transfer of said house under the Central Government's notification dated 3rd August 1960. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation. The Court ruled that allotments made by government departments for their employees are deemed to be made by a 'competent authority' under the Act. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Central Government's order of 3rd August 1960 extended the eligibility date for possession, thereby validating the appellant's claim. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the Settlement Commissioner's order transferring the property to the appellant, establishing that departmental allotments satisfy the statutory requirements for transfer under the relevant settlement laws.
Questions settled- Does an allotment of an evacuee house by a government department constitute an allotment by a 'competent authority' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can a government servant in possession of an evacuee house under a departmental allotment claim transfer of the property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Did the Central Government's order dated 3rd August 1960 extend the eligibility date for possession of evacuee houses for the purpose of transfer?
- NAZIR AHMAD vs Mst. SULTANA BIBI ANO ANOTHER1975 SCMR 327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the transfer of an evacuee house previously occupied by the appellant, a government servant, under a departmental allotment. The core legal question was whether an allotment made by a government department constitutes an allotment by a 'competent authority' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and whether the appellant met the possession requirements for transfer. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation, ruling that allotments made by government departments, where evacuee houses were placed at their disposal, are deemed to be allotments by a 'competent authority.' Furthermore, the Court held that the Central Government's order dated August 3, 1960, effectively extended the relevant possession date, thereby validating the appellant's claim. Consequently, the house was not available for disposal under the earmarking scheme as the appellant’s entitlement had already been established. The principle laid down is that departmental allotments of evacuee houses are valid for transfer purposes, and subsequent government orders extending possession dates apply to such occupants, superseding prior earmarking.
Questions settled- Does an allotment of an evacuee house by a government department constitute an allotment by a 'competent authority' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can a government servant in possession of an evacuee house under a departmental allotment claim transfer of such house under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Does the Central Government's order dated 3rd August 1960 extend the possession date for the purpose of claiming transfer of evacuee houses?
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two petitions for special leave to appeal against an order of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court, which refused to restore two writ petitions previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether the High Court acted arbitrarily in refusing an adjournment and subsequently dismissing the petitions, and whether the subsequent refusal to restore those petitions was justified. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was correct and fully justified. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's counsel had failed to file a 'vakalatnama' despite being granted prior time and a clear warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that a counsel who has not filed a 'vakalatnama' lacks the necessary locus standi to appear before the Court or request an adjournment. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petitions, affirming that procedural requirements regarding representation must be strictly adhered to by legal practitioners to maintain the orderly conduct of court proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a counsel have the locus standi to request an adjournment if they have not filed a vakalatnama?
- Is the refusal of a High Court to restore a writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution justified when the counsel failed to comply with prior court directions regarding representation?
- NAZAR ALI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 55 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the transfer of a disputed house in Rawalpindi to respondent No. 2 under an earmarking scheme and subsequent ejectment proceedings against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a non-claimant displaced person in unauthorized possession, was entitled to the benefit of the Central Government Notification dated 13th October 1959 regarding deemed possession despite failing to pay arrears of rent and public dues. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly found the Notification inapplicable to the petitioner because he failed to fulfill the mandatory condition of paying rent and public dues, and was guilty of laches. The Court laid down the principle that the extended definition of possession under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and the Government Notification cannot be claimed by an occupant who has not satisfied the prerequisite condition of clearing rent and public dues from the date of occupation.
Questions settled- Whether a non-claimant displaced person in unauthorized possession is entitled to the benefit of the Central Government Notification dated 13th October 1959 without paying arrears of rent?
- Does a person qualify for the transfer of property under an earmarking scheme if their N.C.H. Form remains undisposed of due to their own delay and laches?
- Can the extended definition of possession under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 apply when the conditions specified in the Central Government Notification are not fulfilled?
- NAWAZISH ALI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 510 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-17Read full judgment →
- NAWAZISH ALI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER-1975 P Cr. L J 510 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-17Read full judgment →
- Nawabzada ABDUL QADIR vs Mirza ANSAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the allotment of garden land comprising Survey No. 23 in District Hyderabad. The core legal question involved rival claims for the disputed land between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 under rehabilitation laws, complicated by disputed questions of fact regarding the classification of the land and the genuineness of official records. The Supreme Court held that where the factual position of rival claims remains in a nebulous state and involves disputed questions of fact, an order by the High Court remanding the case to the Settlement Commissioner for a proper factual inquiry is just and proper. The Court laid down the principle that upon remand, the entire case reopens before the competent forum, allowing parties to raise all legal and factual objections, including those related to limitation.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in remanding a case to the Settlement Commissioner when the factual position regarding rival land claims is in a nebulous state?
- Does the reopening of a case upon remand allow parties to raise objections regarding the limitation period of prior revision petitions?
- Can constitutional jurisdiction be exercised when an alternative adequate remedy by way of revision is available?
- NAWAB vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 237 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-07Read full judgment →
- NAWAB AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE-1975 P Cr. L J 1270 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-30Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL TYERS & RUBBER Co. Ltd. vs SHER DAD And 2 Others1975 PLC 273 · Labour Court · 1975-09-05Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL And 2 Others1975 PLC1 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- NATIONAL CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD. vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY1975 SCMR 300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a private limited company, purchased two cement factories from an Indian concern, Dalmia Cement Industries, in 1964. Following the 1965 war, the vendor became an enemy concern, and the Custodian of Enemy Property sought to recover the outstanding sale price. The petitioner faced competing claims from the National Bank of Pakistan, which had guaranteed the transaction and faced international arbitration awards, and the Custodian, who invoked Martial Law Regulation No. 70 to demand payment. The petitioner challenged the Custodian's summary demands, arguing that the Custodian lacked jurisdiction to determine disputed debts and that the petitioner risked double liability. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine. On appeal, the Supreme Court granted leave, noting that the case raised substantial questions regarding the scope of the Custodian's powers under Martial Law Regulation No. 70, specifically whether the Custodian could unilaterally determine disputed debts or if such matters remained within the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts. The Court emphasized the principle against double jeopardy in civil liabilities, holding that the pending civil litigation offered a forum to resolve competing claims.
Questions settled- Does Martial Law Regulation No. 70 empower the Custodian of Enemy Property to unilaterally determine the quantum of a disputed debt?
- Can the Custodian of Enemy Property initiate summary recovery proceedings when the underlying liability is the subject of pending civil litigation?
- Is a party liable to pay the same debt twice, once to a guarantor and once to the Custodian of Enemy Property, in the context of enemy property legislation?
- PUNJAB TEACHERS UNION vs ADMINISTRATOR, MULTAN DISTRICT COUNCIL1975 PLC 20 · Punjab Labour Court · 1973-12-17Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, RAWALPINDI vs MUKHTAR AHMED And Another1975 PLC 600 · Labour Court · 1974-12-31Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, PEOPLES' FEDERATION vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL1975 PLC 56 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- NASREEN BEGUM AND 3 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD YOUNIS AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 647 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-13Read full judgment →
- NASEER DIN Alias NASEERA AND 8 Othorss vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 280 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-06Read full judgment →
- NASEER DIN alias NASEERA AND 8 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 280 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-06Read full judgment →
- NASEER AHMED vs THE STATE--1975 P Cr. L J 526 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-28Read full judgment →
- NASEEB KHAN AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1274 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-29Read full judgment →
- NARAINDAS AND 2 OTHERS vs PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF REHABILITATION AND 21975 SCMR 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1963-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the Tribunal appointed under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, which challenged the non-evacuee status granted to members of a joint Hindu family. The core legal questions involve determining whether certain appellants, specifically Ramchand and Naraindas, qualified as evacuees under the law due to their migration to India following Partition, and whether the disputed properties constituted joint family property or self-acquired property. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's factual findings that the family migrated due to the fear of disturbances and that Ramchand and Naraindas were evacuees were well-founded and supported by evidence, and further upheld the finding that the disputed assets were joint family property given the presence of a sufficient nucleus. The court established that a person migrating to India due to Partition or fear of disturbances attains evacuee status, which is not undone by a temporary return, and that properties acquired while a sufficient nucleus of joint family property exists are presumed to be joint family property unless disproved by clear accounts.
Questions settled- Whether a person who migrated to India on account of Partition or fear of disturbances qualifies as an evacuee under the evacuee property laws?
- Does the temporary return of a person to Pakistan alter their established status as an evacuee?
- How is the presumption of joint family property determined when a nucleus of joint family property exists?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate tribunal's findings of fact regarding evacuee status be interfered with?
- NAEEMUDDIN KHAN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 1082 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-26Read full judgment →
- NABU vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 96 · Sindh High Court · 1973-04-19Read full judgment →
- NABU vs THE STATE-1975 P Cr. L J 96 · Sindh High Court · 1973-04-19Read full judgment →
- N1SAR AHMAD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 400 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-17Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1336 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-28Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1432 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-06Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs TAYAB SHARIF1975 SCMR 393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from an order of the High Court granting unconditional leave to defend a summary suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner-Bank sought recovery of Rs. 64,986.72 based on a promissory note. The respondent had successfully argued before the High Court that the loan was secured by a pledge of goods, specifically bills of lading and insurance policies, and that the Bank had cleared these goods at the destination port but failed to account for them or credit their value against the debt. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting unconditional leave to defend rather than imposing conditions such as depositing the suit amount or furnishing security. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court exercised its discretion reasonably. The Court affirmed that where a defendant raises a bona fide triable issue regarding the satisfaction of the debt, granting unconditional leave to defend is justified, as the imposition of conditions remains a matter of judicial discretion based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.
Questions settled- Is the grant of unconditional leave to defend in a summary suit a matter of judicial discretion?
- Does a claim that a debt has been satisfied by the creditor's possession of pledged goods constitute a bona fide triable issue?
- Can a court grant unconditional leave to defend a suit based on a promissory note if the defendant alleges the debt was satisfied through other means?
- MURA MMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 419 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-09Read full judgment →
- MUNSHI KHAN vs BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 349 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the High Court of West Pakistan dismissing the appellant's writ petition in limine. The appellant had applied for Government lands under the Tubewell Sinking Scheme in 1961 and was allotted Lot No. 2 comprising specific Khasra numbers. Upon taking possession, the appellant found the actual area was less than the estimated acreage mentioned in the allotment communication and sought additional land to make up the shortfall. The Collector rejected the request as the scheme had been terminated, though an Additional Commissioner initially allowed the appellant's appeal. Subsequently, the Board of Revenue sanctioned a review, setting aside that relief, and a revision before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed. The core legal question was whether the Government land allotment was made by specific lot or by guaranteed acreage. The Supreme Court held that the grant was identifiable by lot and specific Khasra numbers rather than by acreage, and since the appellant accepted the lot and took possession without immediate protest before the scheme terminated, he could not claim additional land. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an allotment of Government land under a scheme is determined by the specific lot and Khasra numbers or by the estimated acreage mentioned in correspondence?
- Can an allottee claim additional land to make up for a shortfall in acreage after accepting possession of the originally allotted lot without protest?
- Whether revenue authorities are bound to allot additional land after the relevant land sinking scheme has ceased to operate?
- MUNIR AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court refusing bail to the appellants in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly applied established principles in declining bail given the peculiar circumstances of the case. The factual matrix involved a violent clash between two parties over land, resulting in cross-cases and a complex procedural situation where three different sets of accused persons were committed to stand trial for the same occurrence, including the appellants who were substituted by the police during the investigation. The Supreme Court observed that the appellants had been on interim bail since 1971 without abusing the concession. Consequently, the Court held that in these unique circumstances, the interim bail should be confirmed, particularly as the trial date was imminent. The Court reaffirmed the principle that while bail is a discretionary matter, the continued liberty of an accused who has not abused the concession, especially pending an imminent trial in complex, multi-party litigation, warrants confirmation of bail, subject to the trial court's authority to cancel it for valid reasons.
Questions settled- Should bail be granted when the police investigation has substituted the original accused with a new set of suspects in a cross-case scenario?
- Does the fact that an accused has not abused the concession of interim bail over a long period justify its confirmation pending trial?
- Can the Supreme Court confirm interim bail despite the accused having been committed to stand trial?
- MUNIR AND 3 OTHERSs vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 331 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-09Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 331 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-09Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KASUR vs MESSRS MAHBOOB ASHRAF TRANSPORT1975 SCMR 180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court addressed three petitions challenging the validity of an enhanced toll-tax on public vehicles by the Municipal Committee, Kasur. The Committee had increased the toll-tax from Re. 1 to Rs. 2 per loaded bus in 1968, which was initially imposed in 1963 under Section 33 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960. The respondents filed a suit challenging the enhancement, alleging that neither the requisite sanction of the competent authority nor notification in the official Gazette, as prescribed by the Ordinance, had been obtained. The High Court had issued a temporary injunction restraining the Committee from recovering the additional Re. 1, conditional on the respondents furnishing security or the Committee undertaking to maintain accounts and refund the amount if the suits succeeded. The Supreme Court found that the Committee had not complied with the requirements of Sections 33 and 34 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, regarding prior government sanction and official gazette notification for the enhancement. Consequently, the enhancement was deemed illegal, and the petitions seeking to uphold its validity were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the enhancement of a toll-tax by a Municipal Committee require the previous sanction of the Government?
- Is the levy of a toll-tax required to be notified in the official Gazette?
- Can a Municipal Committee legally enhance a toll-tax without complying with statutory requirements for sanction and notification?
- What are the consequences if a Municipal Committee fails to obtain prior government sanction and official gazette notification for a toll-tax enhancement?
- MUNAWAR KHAN vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 119 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by Munawar Khan against his conviction and sentence of death under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murders of three persons in two separate incidents. The Lahore High Court had maintained the petitioner's conviction while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal questions involved whether there was sufficient reliable corroboration for the testimony of witnesses who resiled from their previous statements, whether the recovery and ballistics matching of the petitioner's revolver were legally established, and whether the provisions of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 required pointing out discrepancies between statements made before the committing court and the trial court. The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration, medical evidence, and ballistic matching of recovered bullets with the petitioner's revolver furnished ample corroboration, and that statements before a magistrate do not constitute 'evidence' under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a witness who has resiled from their previous statement can be accepted without reliable corroboration?
- Does Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require the court to put a statement made by the accused before the committing magistrate to the accused as a circumstance appearing in the evidence?
- Whether a statement made by an accused before a committing magistrate amounts to evidence or an admission under the law?
- Is ballistics evidence matching recovered lead bullets to a licensed revolver sufficient to corroborate eyewitness and dying declarations in a murder trial?
- MUMTAZ HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 657 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-10Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ ETC. vs THE DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA ETC.1975 SCMR 99 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against an order of the High Court, which upheld a District Judge's decision directing a Rent Controller to proceed with an eviction application despite pending proceedings before Settlement authorities regarding the property's title. The core legal question was whether Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, concerning the stay of suits, applies to proceedings under the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. During the appeal, it was revealed that the High Court had stayed the proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner, thereby suspending the challenge to the respondent's title and the previous stay order on rent recovery. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the original grounds for staying the eviction proceedings had effectively disappeared. The Court declined to definitively rule on the applicability of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to rent restriction proceedings, finding that on the merits, there was no justification to keep the eviction application in abeyance indefinitely, especially given the appellants' failure to pay rent.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of title disputes before Settlement authorities justify an indefinite stay of eviction proceedings under the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can a Rent Controller stay eviction proceedings based on Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- MUKHTAR ALI AND OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), SARGODHA AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a dispute regarding the cancellation of 164 produce index units from the land allotments of the petitioners, who were allotted refugee property as descendants of one Mahando. A rival claimant filed an application under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, alleging fraud due to overlapping allotments, leading the Additional Settlement Commissioner to cancel part of the petitioners' land. Instead of promptly seeking constitutional remedies, the petitioners instituted a civil suit, which was barred under section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and subsequently filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on grounds of laches and acquiescence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners could not concurrently pursue a civil suit and a writ petition in the High Court for the same matter. Furthermore, on merits, the Court found that substantial justice had been done as the petitioners were only entitled to the reduced units upon proper calculation of the inheritance, and accordingly dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition can be maintained when a civil suit challenging the same impugned order is already pending?
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging an order passed under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 in view of section 25 thereof?
- Whether the time spent in prosecuting a misconceived civil suit can be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation or laches in writ jurisdiction?
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 51 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the murder of his sister. The petitioner admitted to killing the deceased, claiming he acted under provocation due to her alleged loose moral character, which had caused him social embarrassment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's actions fell within the scope of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that the petitioner had nursed a grievance over a period of time and acted with deliberation, as evidenced by his sending the deceased's son away before committing the crime. The Court affirmed that the provocation was neither sudden nor grave enough to deprive the petitioner of self-control. The key principle laid down is that for the plea of grave and sudden provocation to succeed, the provocation must be immediate and overwhelming; a long-nursed grievance or premeditated act does not satisfy the requirements of Exception 1 to Section 300.
Questions settled- Does a long-nursed grievance regarding a victim's moral character constitute grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a murder conviction be mitigated to culpable homicide not amounting to murder when the accused acted with deliberation?
- Is the act of removing witnesses from the scene of a crime evidence of premeditation negating the defense of sudden provocation?
- MUKHTAR AHMAD CHAUDHARY vs ASHFAQ AHMAD AWAN And 3 Others1975 PLC 332 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-03-14Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 698 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-10Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAAR vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which had confirmed his conviction and death sentence for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, motivated by a prior dispute, stabbed the deceased in the chest with a knife during a marriage ceremony, an act witnessed by several individuals who also observed the recovery of the blood-stained weapon. The petitioner argued that his physical condition as an undersized hunchback rendered him incapable of committing the offence, contended that the acquittal of his co-accused undermined the credibility of the entire prosecution case, and suggested the incident occurred during a sudden fight. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, holding that the petitioner failed to provide medical evidence to substantiate his physical incapacity claims. The Court further ruled that the acquittal of co-accused does not automatically invalidate the testimony against the petitioner, especially where witnesses are credible and lack enmity. Finally, the Court dismissed the sudden fight argument as it was not raised at the trial stage, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of co-accused automatically render the prosecution's evidence against the remaining accused unreliable?
- Can a plea of 'sudden fight' be raised for the first time in an appeal before the Supreme Court if it was not pleaded before the trial court?
- Is the court required to physically observe an accused to determine physical incapacity in the absence of medical evidence?
- MUHAMNIAD AFZAL vs THE STATE-Opponent1975 P Cr. L J 1353 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAFARULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 473 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for the review of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissing an election appeal. The petitioner sought review on the ground that the previous judgment was based on an erroneous factual assumption that the order of the Chief Election Commissioner fixing the commencement of his disqualification had not been challenged in any court. The core legal question was whether a decision based on an erroneous assumption of fact warrants the review and setting aside of the final appellate decision. The Supreme Court held that while a decision based on a wrong assumption of fact is liable to be reviewed, the granting of a review remains a matter of judicial discretion and is not a matter of right. The Court concluded that even upon excluding the finding based on the erroneous assumption, the final dismissal of the appeal remained fully justified on other independent grounds, including the validity and reasonableness of the Chief Election Commissioner's order and the petitioner's own conduct in failing to appeal the High Court's earlier interlocutory decision. The key principle laid down is that a review petition will not be allowed unless the erroneous finding was the sole or foundational basis of the impugned decision and its correction would necessarily lead to a contrary conclusion.
Questions settled- Whether a judgment based on an erroneous assumption of fact is automatically liable to be reviewed and set aside?
- Does the power of the Chief Election Commissioner to specify the period of disqualification under the National and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Act, 1964 include the power to fix the terminus a quo?
- Is the granting of a review petition a matter of right when a ground for review exists?
- Can a review be granted where the alternative grounds in the original judgment independently justify the final decision?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUFFUDDIN vs Messrs DAWOOD COTTON MILLS Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 480 · Labour Court · 1972-11-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNIS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 534 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNIS vs THE STATE--1975 P Cr. L J 534 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAR Alias MAMMOON AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1404 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD WARIS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a conviction for contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, following the publication of newspaper articles by the appellant, a printer and editor, which criticized a court clerk and alleged judicial bias during the pendency of a legal complaint. The core legal questions were whether the articles constituted contempt of court by prejudicing pending proceedings or scandalizing the court, and whether the High Court was justified in refusing to accept the appellant's unconditional apology. The Supreme Court held that the articles did constitute contempt as they tended to prejudice a pending case and lowered the court's estimation in the public eye by suggesting judicial weakness. Regarding the apology, the Court affirmed that an apology does not automatically purge contempt but serves as a mitigating factor. While the Court declined to accept the apology directly—as that discretion lies with the trial court—it found the sentence imposed by the High Court harsh. Consequently, the conviction was upheld, but the sentence was reduced to a nominal fine of one rupee.
Questions settled- Does an unconditional apology automatically purge a finding of contempt of court?
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence imposed for contempt of court?
- Does a newspaper article criticizing court staff and implying judicial weakness constitute contempt of court?
- Is a publication that tends to prejudice a pending legal proceeding considered contempt of court?
- MUHAMMAD vs IKRAM SADIQ KHAN & Co., KARACHI1975 PLC 703 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-06-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD USMAN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1267 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD USMAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing them post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 148, 325, and 307 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein they were specifically alleged to have fired at and injured the complainant with pistol shots, causing three firearm injuries. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its judicial discretion in denying bail, particularly in the presence of a counter-version of the occurrence in another first information report. The Supreme Court held that the discretion exercised by the High Court was based on sound judicial principles and remained unaffected merely by the existence of a counter-version lodged by a co-accused. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for bail.
Questions settled- Whether the existence of a counter-version in a first information report obligates the court to grant post-arrest bail?
- Does the refusal of bail by the High Court based on specific firearm allegations warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1310 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TAYAB SHAH vs Syed FAYYAZ HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS1975 P Cr. L J 120 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two petitions filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of a supplementary challan. The petitioners contended that once a complete challan is submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the investigating agency loses its power to re-investigate the case or submit a fresh challan, particularly without the direction of a superior police officer. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that there is no statutory bar in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preventing the police from conducting further investigations as many times as circumstances require, even after a final report under Section 173 has been submitted. The Court clarified that this power is not dependent on whether the subsequent proceedings are an inquiry or a trial, nor does it strictly require a directive from a superior officer. Lastly, the Court ruled that allegations of mala fides are questions of fact to be determined during the inquiry or trial, and cannot form the basis for quashing proceedings at this stage.
Questions settled- Does the police lose the power to conduct further investigation or submit a supplementary challan once a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has been submitted?
- Is a formal direction from a superior police officer mandatory under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for an investigating officer to conduct a re-investigation?
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of mala fides when the inquiry or trial is still in progress?
- MUHAMMAD TAQI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 76 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged recovery proceedings for excise duty, alleging that no adjudication order existed and that the recovery was illegal. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding that departmental records contradicted the petitioner's claims. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined the records and determined that the petitioner’s assertions were entirely false; the Department had issued valid show-cause notices, the petitioner had participated in the proceedings, and a lawful adjudication order existed. The Court held that the petitioner had deliberately misled both the High Court and the Supreme Court to obtain stay orders, thereby abusing the judicial process. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal and initiated contempt of court proceedings against the petitioner for making false representations. The judgment establishes that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of false averments and that parties who abuse the court's process to secure interim relief are subject to punitive action for contempt.
Questions settled- Can a party invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court based on false factual averments?
- Is the High Court required to conduct a full-fledged investigation into disputed facts in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the abuse of court process by making false representations to obtain a stay order warrant contempt of court proceedings?
- MUHAMMAD SOOFAN vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1975 P Cr. L J 255 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SOOFAN vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS-----1975 P Cr. L J 255 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs Messrs ABBA UMER HAJI DADA & Co., HYDERABAD1975 PLC 385 · Industrial Court · 1973-01-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs BASHIR AHMAD1975 P Cr. L J 1249 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIK vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1321 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 889 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, Muhammad Sharif, challenged his conviction and sentence of transportation for life under section 302/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his sister, handed down by the Sessions Judge primarily on the basis of a judicial confession. The core legal question was whether the judicial confession was recorded in accordance with the mandatory provisions of section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and whether it was made voluntarily so as to be admissible in evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the Magistrate failed to make a real endeavour to ascertain the voluntary nature of the confession, did not record the questions and answers put to the accused, and improperly handed the accused back to police custody after recording the statement. The Court ruled that the confession was neither recorded in accordance with law nor voluntary, rendering it inadmissible. Consequently, excluding the retracted confession and finding the remaining evidence insufficient, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether a judicial confession recorded without putting necessary questions to ascertain its voluntary nature is admissible in evidence?
- Is the requirement of giving a warning under section 164(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory before commencing the recording of a confession?
- Does the presumption of genuineness under section 80 of the Evidence Act 1872 apply when the mandatory procedural requirements for recording a confession under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not fulfilled?
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on a retracted judicial confession that is found to be involuntary and inadmissible?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs The COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR DIVISION, BAHAWALPUR And Others ,1975 PLC [C S.T.] 85 · Administrative Tribunal Punjab · 1975-01-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, AUQAF ETC.1975 SCMR 104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged his forcible eviction from a piece of land situated in village Mahmud Booti by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf and Assistant Manager, Auqaf, after his Constitution Petition and subsequent Letters Patent Appeal were dismissed by the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner could approbate and reprobate regarding his status as a tenant, whether sections 6-A and 6-B of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961 applied to protect his possession, and whether his eviction under section 6 of the said Ordinance read with rule 7(3) of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties (Administration) Rules, 1960 was lawful. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner could not blow hot and cold by claiming not to be a tenant in earlier proceedings while asserting tenancy before the appellate courts, and that his forcible eviction following non-compliance with a valid notice to execute a lease deed was fully in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can a party approbate and reprobate by claiming different statuses such as non-tenant and tenant at different stages of judicial proceedings?
- Whether the Chief Administrator of Auqaf is legally empowered to evict an occupant of waqf property upon failure to comply with a notice to execute a lease deed?
- Does section 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 apply to evict an occupant who has not been established as a tenant?
- MUHAMMAD SHAMIM vs MESSRS PAKISTAN TOBACCO Co. LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld the Sind Labour Court's order setting aside the Junior Labour Court's decision in his favour. The petitioner, dismissed for theft by respondent No. 1, challenged the dismissal on grounds relating to the non-supply of the inquiry report with the show-cause notice, the choice of disciplinary proceedings over criminal prosecution, the approval of the Inquiry Officer under the relevant standing order, and the scope of the Labour Court's review regarding the finding of theft. The Supreme Court held that the contentions were devoid of force, finding that the standing orders did not require supplying the inquiry report, that employers may independently pursue disciplinary proceedings without prior criminal prosecution, that the officiating Inquiry Officer had valid authority, and that the Labour Court's review was properly limited to whether the action accorded with law. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a copy of the enquiry report must necessarily be supplied along with the second show-cause notice in industrial dismissal cases?
- Can an employer initiate disciplinary proceedings for misconduct amounting to an offence without first prosecuting the employee in a criminal court?
- Whether an officiating officer can conduct a domestic inquiry under Standing Order No. 15(4)?
- To what extent can a Labour Court go into the question of fact regarding whether an employee committed theft during disciplinary proceedings?
- MUHAMMAD SHAH SYED vs THE STATE AND 3 OTHERS1975 P Cr. L J 101 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAH SYED vs THE STATE AND 3 OTHERS--1975 P Cr. L J 101 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs THE STATE.1975 P Cr. L J 1110 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 727 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs SHAHZAD SILK FACTORY, JHANG , .1975 PLC 22 · Labour Court · 1974-03-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs Mst. MARYAM BIBI1975 SCMR 111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which interfered with the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing an ejectment application filed by a landlady. The landlady sought to eject her tenant from a shop in Gujranwala on the ground that it was required in good faith for the business of her son. The Rent Controller and the District Judge had dismissed the application, holding the requirement not to be bona fide, but the High Court reversed this finding. The core legal question is whether the High Court was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fides of the landlord's personal requirement under the relevant rent restriction law. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts relied on irrelevant considerations—such as the son having previously vacated another shop or having experienced business failures—which did not negate the bona fides of the requirement. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a landlord is entitled to seek ejectment to set up a child in business.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide requirement in rent restriction cases?
- Does the fact that a landlord's son previously vacated another shop establish a lack of bona fides for seeking ejectment?
- Whether previous business failures of a landlord's family member prove want of bona fides in an ejectment application?
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ Alias M. RIAZ vs MUHAMMAD YUSUF Alias M. YUSUF AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs Major MUHAMMAD SALEH HASHMI AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 95 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a property dispute over a composite property in Sialkot, comprising a shop in possession of the appellant and a residential portion in occupation of the respondent. The core legal question concerned whether the appellant had the locus standi to challenge the transfer of the residential portion to the respondent when both portions were found by all settlement authorities to be independent units and the appellant was not in possession of the residential portion. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, not being in possession of the residential house and having failed to challenge the final finding that the shop and house were independent units, was not an aggrieved person in respect of the house and lacked locus standi to maintain the challenge. The principle laid down is that a claimant lacking possession of a distinct, independent property unit cannot maintain a challenge regarding the transfer of another independent unit in the occupation of another person.
Questions settled- Whether a person not in possession of a disputed property unit has locus standi to challenge its transfer?
- Can a party challenge the transfer of a property unit that has been concurrently found by settlement authorities to be an independent unit separate from the portion in their possession?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT1975 PLC 390 · Industrial Court · -Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the High Court in a criminal case involving allegations of rioting and other offences. The petitioner was not initially named in the police report filed by the Sub-Inspector, who discovered the injured parties tied to cots following a dispute between a landlord and his tenants. Although the injured parties subsequently named the petitioner as an assailant during their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court had placed undue reliance on the general alarm caused by the incident and the petitioner's alleged role as a 'trouble monger,' rather than on admissible evidence. The Supreme Court held that the initial omission of the petitioner's name in the police report and the questionable circumstances surrounding the injured parties' initial refusal to provide statements warranted the grant of bail. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, accepted it, and confirmed the bail previously granted to the petitioner.
Questions settled- Does the initial omission of an accused's name in a police report constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Can a court rely on general public alarm or the status of an accused as a 'trouble monger' to deny bail when the evidence is otherwise insufficient?
- Is the statement of an injured party recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient to deny bail if the accused was not named in the initial police report?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs Messrs DAWAN TEXTILE MILLS, KOTRI1975 PLC 397 · Industrial Court · 1973-01-13Read full judgment →
- QAIMUDDIN vs PAHALWAN AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Qaimuddin, petitioner, sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated 17th May 1974, which acquitted the respondents of the charge of murdering Ismail. The core legal question involved the assessment of circumstantial and confessional evidence in a criminal murder trial. The Supreme Court held that there was no ground for granting leave to appeal, observing that the prosecution relied on extra-judicial confessions made to an unexamined witness, completely self-exculpatory retracted judicial confessions, and recoveries of weapons that were either unconnected to the injuries or unstained with blood, alongside the fact that the State counsel did not support the conviction in the lower courts. The key principle laid down is that self-exculpatory confessions, uncorroborated recoveries, and unexamined extra-judicial confessions are insufficient to sustain a murder conviction.
Questions settled- Whether self-exculpatory judicial confessions can form the basis of a murder conviction?
- Are recoveries of weapons of no evidentiary value when not connected to the crime?
- Whether leave to appeal against acquittal should be granted when prosecution evidence lacks corroboration and State counsel does not support the conviction?
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs GHULAM KADIR AND 3 Others1975 P Cr. L J 676 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NASIM AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1159 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NASEER vs Hakim DOST MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1975 SCMR 87 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon an application for review of a previous order dated 11th October 1973. The core legal question raised by the petitioner is whether the view taken by the court that Settlement Scheme No. VII is subject to Settlement Scheme No. I is erroneous. The court held that the contention has no force, noting that under the reconstituted Scheme No. 7, property is to be transferred in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Settlement Scheme, which clearly bars the transfer of a shop if a person has already obtained the transfer of another shop. Furthermore, the court established the key principle that an alleged error in the view taken by the court does not constitute a valid ground for review of its order. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition.
Questions settled- Is Settlement Scheme No. VII subject to Settlement Scheme No. I?
- Does a bar exist against the transfer of a shop if a person has already obtained the transfer of another shop under the Settlement Scheme?
- Is an alleged error in the court's view a sufficient ground to review a previous order?
- MUHAMMAD NASEEM AHMAD vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a contempt of court petition filed against the Member (Taxation), Central Board of Revenue, and the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, alleging willful disobedience of a Supreme Court judgment regarding the petitioner's seniority in the Income-tax Department. The core legal question was whether the respondents acted in contumacious disregard of the Court's previous judgment by failing to grant the petitioner seniority from the date of his provisional certification. The Supreme Court held that the petition was both infructuous, due to the petitioner's subsequent compulsory retirement under Martial Law Regulation No. 114 of 1972, and meritless. The Court clarified that its previous judgment did not mandate seniority from the date of provisional certification, as the Public Service Commission lacked the authority to grant retrospective certification. The Court established the principle that confirmation of government employees remains within the executive discretion of the government, and the Public Service Commission cannot indirectly achieve retrospective certification by linking final certification to a provisional date. Consequently, the Court found no evidence of deliberate disobedience or manipulation by the respondents.
Questions settled- Does the Public Service Commission have the authority to grant certification with retrospective effect?
- Is the confirmation of government employees a matter within the executive discretion of the government?
- Can a government department be held in contempt for interpreting a court judgment in a manner that differs from the petitioner's interpretation?
- Does a provisional certification by the Public Service Commission automatically entitle an employee to seniority from that provisional date?
- MUHAMMAD MUSLIM vs PROJECT MANAGER, H. F. F., TAXILA1975 PLC 11 · Labour Court · 1973-12-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MISKIN vs THE STATE-1975 PCr. L J 600 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MISK IN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 600 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MALIK vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 629 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MALIK vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER---1975 P Cr. L J 629 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-02Read full judgment →