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.
- Messrs BANARSI SILK CLOTH MUSEUM vs TAJ MOHAMMAD And 2 Others , .1975 PLC 73 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-03-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs BABUL ISLAM PRINTING PRESS, KARACHI vs WORKERS' UNION1975 PLC 747 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs BABUL ISLAM PRINTING PRESS, KARACHI vs RIAZ AHMED1975 PLC 193 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- Messrs ASSOCIATED CONSULTING ENGINEERS Ltd., KARACHI vs RAZI AHMAD1975 PLC 147 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-05-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs ASIATIC OPTICAL Co., KARACHI vs KHAN MOHAMMAD And Another1975 PLC 80 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-04-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs ALI ASGHAR TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., KARACHI \ vs DAULAT SHAH1975 PLC 29 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs AHMED EBRAHIM AGENCY Ltd., KARACHI vs RAZI HAIDER NAQVI1975 PLC 613 · Labour Court · 1975-04-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs ADAM SILK MILLS, KARACHI vs SHABIH-UL-HASAN And 14 Others1975 PLC 422 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1972-12-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs ADAM Ltd., KARACHI vs ABDUL SATTAR AHMED PIDHA1975 PLC 254 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-09-24Read full judgment →
- Messrs & ABDUL REHMAN & Sons Ltd., KARACHI And Other vs MOHAMMAD1975 PLC 218 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- MERAJ DIN vs Mian FAZAL AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS1975 SCMR 255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a service and settlement matter concerning the transfer of evacuee property, specifically a shop in Civil Lines, Sargodha. The petitioner, a pre-partition tenant, sought transfer of the property in 1966, leading to revisional proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner, which were challenged via a writ petition in the Lahore High Court by the respondents. The High Court accepted the writ petition, holding that the property in dispute had already been validly transferred to the respondents in 1960 as part of an industrial concern and that this finding was confirmed in prior ejectment proceedings. The core legal question involves whether concurrent findings of fact regarding property identity and transfer can be reopened in constitutional or appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that questions of fact properly decided on available material and local inspection cannot be challenged in writ or special leave jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the identity and dimensions of transferred evacuee property be challenged in writ jurisdiction?
- Whether special leave to appeal can be granted to examine a pure question of fact properly decided by lower authorities?
- Does a property number discrepancy override clear physical dimensions and local inspection findings in property transfer matters?
- MEHTAB BEG AND 2 OTHERS vs CHIRAGH ALI REPRESENTED BY (HEIRS)1975 SCMR 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed an application to implead the legal representatives of a deceased respondent in a second appeal. The petitioners had failed to include the legal representatives of the deceased respondent, Chiragh Ali, in their memorandum of appeal, citing a typist's error as the cause for this omission. The High Court rejected this explanation, finding it inadequate to condone the delay, and consequently declared the appeal abated against those legal representatives. The core legal question was whether a failure to implead legal representatives due to a clerical error constitutes sufficient grounds to condone delay and allow the amendment of the appeal memorandum. The Supreme Court held that the responsibility for the accuracy of court filings lies with the counsel, who must verify the memorandum against the decree-sheets. The Court affirmed that the petitioners must bear the consequences of their counsel's failure to perform this duty, thereby refusing leave to appeal and upholding the abatement of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does a clerical error by a typist in a memorandum of appeal constitute sufficient grounds to condone the failure to implead legal representatives?
- Is a counsel responsible for verifying the accuracy of a memorandum of appeal against the decree-sheets filed?
- Can an appeal be declared abated if the legal representatives of a deceased respondent are not impleaded in a timely manner?
- MEHBOOB vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 933 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-05Read full judgment →
- MEHAR KHAN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 257 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-06Read full judgment →
- MEHAR KHAN vs THE STATE-1975 P Cr. L J 257 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-06Read full judgment →
- MEHAR DIN vs MANAGEMENT OF P. W. R., MULTAN1975 PLC 17 · Labour Court · 1973-12-03Read full judgment →
- MEDICAL CENTRE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS And Another ,1975 PLC 837 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-11-02Read full judgment →
- Mbssrs UNIVERSAL BLOCK PRESS, KARACHI vs SIND LABOUR COURT NO. V And Another1975 PL C 313 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- Mbssrs SHAHAB SILK MILLS, KARACHI vs A. RAHIM AND ANOTHER1975 PLC 159 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-09-18Read full judgment →
- Mbssrs OMAR SONS Ltd., KARACHI vs LABOURS' UNION1975 PLC 129 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-08-15Read full judgment →
- Mbssrs NAZAR INDUSTRIES Ltd., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1975 PLC 705 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-07-25Read full judgment →
- MBSSRS MACDONALD LAYTON CONSTAIN LTD., KARACHI vs DOR RAHMAN1975 PLC 774 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-08-01Read full judgment →
- Mbssrs HUSEIN INDUSTRIES Ltd., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES' UNION And Another1975 PLC 162 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-09-10Read full judgment →
- Mbssrs CONFORCE Ltd., KARACHI vs MOHAMMAD ZAMAN1975 PLC 31 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-07-15Read full judgment →
- Mbssrs COLONY SARHAD TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., KARACHI vs AKBAR KHAN And Another1975 PLC 630 · Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-03-11Read full judgment →
- Mbssks BECO INDUSTRIES Ltd., KARACHI vs AMJAD HUSSAIN And 4 Others1975 PLC 575 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-05-09Read full judgment →
- MAZDOOR UNION vs Messrs SHALIMAR SILK MILLS Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 89 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-04-24Read full judgment →
- MAZDOOR UNION vs Messrs KHOKHAR GLASS WORKS, KARACHI1975 PLC 406 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-01-09Read full judgment →
- MAZDOOR UNION vs Messrs KHOKHAR GLASS WORKS, KARACHI Application1975 PLC 463 · Labour Court · 1972-10-11Read full judgment →
- MAZDOOR UNION vs Messrs HIRJINA & Co. (Pak.) Ltd., KARACHI , .1975 PLC 348 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-10-15Read full judgment →
- MAZDOOR UNION vs COFCOT TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., HYDERABAD Award1975 PLC 722 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-05-28Read full judgment →
- Maulana JAN MUHAMMAD ABBASI vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 642 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-27Read full judgment →
- Maulana JAN MUHAMMAD ABBASI vs THE STATE--1975 P Cr. L J 642 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-27Read full judgment →
- MAULA BAKHSH vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1051 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-16Read full judgment →
- MATIUR REHMAN vs Messrs KARACHI TANNERY Ltd., KARACHI , .1975 PLC 181 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-09-12Read full judgment →
- MATINUDDIN AHMAD vs Mst. MOOR AFSHAN1975 SCMR 229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court regarding the custody of a minor child, Miss Samar Amin. The dispute arose between the petitioner (the father) and the respondent (the mother) following a compromise agreement reached in the High Court, which stipulated that custody would remain with the mother while providing specific visitation and temporary custody rights to the father, including arrangements for the child's education at Queen Mary College and during school vacations. The petitioner sought clarification of the High Court's order, which was subsequently reiterated by the learned Single Judge. The core legal question was whether the High Court's clarification of the custody arrangement was consistent with the original compromise order and legally sound. The Supreme Court held that the clarification provided by the High Court was in accordance with the original order and found no error in the lower court's decision. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with custody arrangements where the lower court's clarification aligns with the parties' initial compromise and serves the minor's interests.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court's clarification of a custody order based on a compromise agreement is subject to interference if it aligns with the original order?
- Can a father challenge a custody arrangement that was previously agreed upon via a compromise in the High Court?
- Does a court have the authority to regulate visitation rights and temporary custody during school vacations in a minor custody dispute?
- Mass AMTUL NASEER SAMI vs SECRETARY, HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 265 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan dismissing a Constitution petition regarding admission to Bolan Medical College, Quetta. The petitioner, daughter of a Provincial Health Department doctor in Baluchistan, claimed entitlement to a reserved seat for doctors' children based on a Chief Minister's announcement and the college prospectus. The admission authorities allocated the seat to respondent No. 3, who secured higher marks in the F.Sc. (Med.) examination and whose father was a registered medical practitioner with a Baluchistan domicile. The core legal questions involved the interpretation of eligibility categories under rule 13 of the prospectus and whether those categories established an order of preference. The Supreme Court held that the respondent fell within the eligible categories and that rule 13 specified categories of eligibility rather than an order of preference. Consequently, the authorities acted properly in awarding the seat to the candidate with higher marks. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the categories specified in rule 13 for admission to Bolan Medical College lay down an order of preference among doctors' children?
- Does the acquisition of a domicile certificate suffice to establish a person as a bona fide resident of Baluchistan for college admission purposes?
- Can admission authorities prefer a candidate with higher academic marks when competing applicants fall under eligible categories without a statutory order of preference?
- MASHKI SWEEPERS' UNION (Regd.), MULTAN vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS,1975 PLC 140 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MASHAL KHAN vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 80 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1959-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of a police constable. The core legal questions concerned whether the police possessed legal authority to arrest the appellant, whether the appellant held a right of private defense, and if that right was exceeded. The Supreme Court held that the police acted without legal authority in attempting to arrest the appellant, as their actions were retaliatory against the appellant’s prior legal efforts to protect his property. Consequently, the appellant possessed a right of private defense against the unlawful arrest. However, the Court ruled that the appellant exceeded this right by using lethal force, shooting the deceased in the face, when he could have used less force to escape. The Court established that while one may resist an unlawful arrest, the force employed must be proportionate; using lethal force when unnecessary constitutes an excess of the right. Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction for murder and substituted it with a conviction under Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Part I, sentencing the appellant to five years' rigorous imprisonment.
Questions settled- Does a citizen have a right of private defense against an unlawful arrest by police officers?
- Can a conviction for murder be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder when the accused exceeds the right of private defense?
- Is the use of lethal force justified when resisting an unlawful arrest if less force could have been used to escape?
- MAQSOOD vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 691 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-29Read full judgment →
- MAQSOOD vs THE STATE-1975 P Cr. L J 691 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-29Read full judgment →
- MAQBUL COTTON FACTORY vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, ExcisE & TAXATION DEPARTMENT, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 189 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions for special leave to appeal were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan to challenge the interim orders of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The underlying writ petitions, which challenged the validity of Rule 12 of the West Pakistan Cotton Control Rules 1966, remained pending before the High Court. The High Court had admitted the petitions, stayed the recovery of dues prior to the notification date of December 3, 1973, but declined to stay prospective recoveries after that date. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the impugned orders were purely discretionary in nature, did not adjudicate upon any substantive rights, and did not finally decide any legal questions. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interim orders, observing that the petitioner's proper remedy was to request the High Court to expedite the hearing of the pending writ petitions. The petitions for special leave to appeal were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court interfere with an interim discretionary order of the High Court where no substantive rights have been finally adjudicated?
- What is the appropriate remedy for a petitioner aggrieved by a High Court's refusal to grant a full interim stay while the main writ petition remains pending?
- MANZOORUL HAQ AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 820 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-24Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR ALI vs DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, HYDERABAD1975 PLC 389 · Industrial Court · -Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMED KHALID vs MANAGER COLONY TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., MULTAN1975 PLC 136 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-11-07Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD KHAN vs Mst. MINHAJUNNISA1975 SCMR 167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a money suit for the recovery of arrears of rent of a building used for running a secondary school, which was decreed by the Court of Small Causes and upheld in revision by the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner's past rental liability stood transferred to the Provincial Government under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 upon the purported takeover of the school. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of a required official notification proving that the management and control of the school was taken over by the Government, the petitioner remained liable for the arrears. The Court further laid down that a party cannot be permitted to produce new evidence at the leave stage to fill an obvious lacuna arising from gross indifference, that personal liability under tenancy agreements is a question of fact not open to agitation in the Supreme Court, and that an objection to the admissibility of a document based on stamp deficiency cannot be raised after the document has been exhibited on the record.
Questions settled- Whether past liability for rent is transferred to the Provincial Government under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 without proof of a notification specifying the date of takeover?
- Can a party be permitted to produce new evidence at the Supreme Court stage to fill an obvious lacuna in evidence resulting from gross indifference?
- Whether an objection to the admissibility of a document on the ground of insufficient stamping can be raised after the document has been exhibited on the record?
- MANIAR INDUSTRIES Ltd., KARACHI vs MAZDOOR UNION1975 PLC 607 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-03-10Read full judgment →
- MANGHARAM AND ANOTHER vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KHAIRPUR1975 SCMR 377 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a writ petition dismissed by the High Court regarding the transfer of an evacuee property. The petitioners had purchased evacuee shop No. D/384 at a public auction in 1960, and a Permanent Transfer Deed was issued to them in 1962. Subsequently, the predecessor-in-interest of private respondents filed an L.S. Form for the transfer of an attached room, claiming it to be a separate shop. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected the application, holding it was an integral part of the shop sold to the petitioners. However, on appeal, the Additional Settlement Commissioner held that there were separate tenements and remitted the matter for consideration, a view affirmed in revision by the Settlement Commissioner. The High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition on the ground that the dispute involved a question of fact concluded by concurrent findings. The Supreme Court held that the case was rightly decided by the High Court based on findings of fact reached within the jurisdiction of the settlement authorities, and consequently dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the question of identification of a property sold at a public auction constitutes a question of fact?
- Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by settlement authorities be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether an attached room can be treated as a separate tenement for transfer under settlement laws?
- MANAGEMENT OF KHURSH1D BHATTA And 3 Other vs GENERAL SECRETARY, MAZDOOR UNION (Regd.),1975 PLC 872 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Malik SHER MOHAMMAD vs SHAH NAWAZ And 5 Others1975 PLC 327 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-03-22Read full judgment →
- Malik RAUF AHMAD vs ESSO PAKISTAN FERTILIZER COMPANY Ltd., DAHARKI1975 PLC 659 · Labour Court · 1974-11-20Read full judgment →
- Malik RAHIM BAKHSH vs SARDAR GULZAR HUSSAIN And Othbrs , .1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 115 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-08-13Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1036 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-15Read full judgment →
- Malik MOHAMMAD IJAZ vs The PROJECT DIRECTOR, LAHORE MILK BOARD,1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 84 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-08-05Read full judgment →
- Malik JAMSHED IQBAL AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1054 · Sindh High Court · 1975-02-17Read full judgment →
- Malik FAZAL HUSSAIN vs MANAGEMENT OF SALT MINES, KHEWRA1975 PLC 321 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-03-12Read full judgment →
- Malik AHMAD KHAN AND 315 OTHERS vs IQBAL AND 8 OTHERS1975 SCMR 275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of a Single Judge of the High Court. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the competence of the petition, arguing that the petitioners failed to first exhaust the remedy of an intra-court appeal to a Bench of two or more Judges. The core legal question was whether, following the amendments introduced by the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act VIII of 1972, such an intra-court appeal was maintainable. The Court held that the proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act VIII of 1972 barred the appeal because the underlying proceedings originated from a statute—the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance VI of 1960—which already provided for at least one appeal and subsequent revisions. Consequently, the intra-court appeal was not competent, and the petition for leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court was maintainable. The Court further affirmed the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition on merits, noting the failure to implead necessary parties and the binding nature of a prior compromise decree.
Questions settled- Does an intra-court appeal lie against an order of a Single Judge of the High Court under Article 201 of the Interim Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan if the underlying proceedings provided for at least one appeal?
- Does the proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act VIII of 1972 bar an intra-court appeal where the original proceedings allowed for appeals and revisions?
- Is a compromise decree regarding land title binding on consolidation authorities?
- Makhdoom Syed NAZAR HUSSAIN vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION AND 7 OTHERS1975 SCMR 147 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of writ petitions and a Letters Patent Appeal by the High Court, concerning the partition and transfer of properties bearing No. P-173 and P-175 Ward No. 6 in Lyallpur, which are partly owned by the petitioner and partly evacuee. The core legal question is whether a co-owner out of possession is entitled to the transfer of the evacuee portion of an indivisible property under paragraph 16(c) of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The Supreme Court held that under the Schedule to the Act, houses and shops were to be transferred only to persons in possession thereof or whose spouse, son, or daughter was in possession, and therefore the petitioner's claim was rightly rejected. The court laid down the principle that eligibility for transfer under paragraph 16(c) requires compliance with possession requirements and submission of proper forms as mandated by the statute, while dismissing the leave petition with observations regarding the manner of partition.
Questions settled- Whether a co-owner out of possession is entitled to the transfer of an indivisible property under paragraph 16(c) of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act?
- Is possession a mandatory prerequisite for submitting forms and claiming transfer of houses or shops under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act?
- MAKHA vs Din STATE1975 SCMR 394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for offences under Section 376 and Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, for rape and murder, where the conviction was based purely on circumstantial evidence. Leave was granted to consider the effect of the absence of injury marks on the deceased or the appellant, normally considered concomitants of rape and strangulation. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the circumstantial evidence, including last seen evidence, extra-judicial confession, and recovery of the dead body at the appellant's instance, was sufficiently corroborated by medical and chemical evidence. The Court held that the absence of struggle marks was not a fatal flaw, as no hard and fast rule could be laid down, especially considering the significant age and physique difference between the robust assailant and the 10/11-year-old victim, who would be incapable of offering resistance. The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence, when cogent and consistent, can form a safe basis for conviction.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for rape and murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence?
- Does the absence of struggle marks on the victim or assailant necessarily negate charges of rape and strangulation?
- What is the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession corroborated by other circumstantial evidence?
- Is the 'last seen' evidence sufficient to establish guilt when corroborated by other facts?
- How does the relative age and physique of the victim and assailant affect the expectation of struggle marks in a rape and murder case?
- MAHMOOD ALI KHAN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 813 · Sindh High Court · 1975-02-17Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AHMAD vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1314 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-26Read full judgment →
- MAHIWAL vs THB STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1121 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 301, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of his nephew following a sudden altercation over a debt, resulting in a sentence of transportation for life. The core legal question is whether the act constituted murder under section 302 or fell within culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, given the absence of premeditation and motive. The court held that where a single hatchet blow is inflicted during a sudden quarrel without premeditation, malice, or an explicit intention to kill, the offense falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court laid down the principle that in the absence of motive and premeditation during a sudden altercation, an assailant can only be attributed with the knowledge that death was likely to ensue rather than the intention to cause death, warranting an alteration of conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Questions settled- Does a single hatchet blow inflicted during a sudden altercation without premeditation constitute murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- Can a previous statement of a witness be transferred to the Sessions file under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when conditions are met?
- Whether the absence of motive and intention to kill reduces an offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- MAHBOOB ZAMAN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 568 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-30Read full judgment →
- MAHAMMAD NOORUDDIN vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And Another1975 PL C 460 · Labour Court · -Read full judgment →
- MADAR BAKHSH vs ASAHA BAWANY ACADEMY (GIRLS SCHOOL), KARACHI1975 PLC 453 · Labour Court · 1972-10-25Read full judgment →
- M.MOOSA vs MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a review petition filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court arising out of a defamation suit. The core legal questions involved whether defamatory statements made in pleadings or notices against third parties attract absolute or qualified privilege, whether Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to defamation suits where privilege is established, and whether an alleged fraud by a party's own counsel in drafting a plaint can constitute a ground for reviewing a judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that an advocate enjoys a qualified privilege for words spoken or written in a professional capacity, that Order VII Rule 11 applies to reject a plaint disclosing no cause of action where statements are privileged, and that a review is not a rehearing of an appeal or a remedy for alleged fraud by one's own counsel against the client. The key principles laid down are that advocates have qualified rather than absolute privilege regarding professional statements, that review jurisdiction is strictly confined to discovery of new evidence, errors apparent on the face of the record, or overlooked material questions, and cannot be used to reopen a case or act as an appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an advocate is entitled to absolute or qualified privilege for words spoken or written in a professional capacity?
- Does Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to a defamation suit where the statements are covered by qualified privilege?
- Whether an allegation that a party's own counsel practiced a fraud by inserting a specific paragraph in the plaint constitutes a valid ground for the review of a judgment?
- What are the permissible grounds for seeking a review of a judgment of the Supreme Court?
- M. RASHID vs Messrs NATIONAL REFINERY Ltd., KARACHI And Another1975 PLC 694 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-03-28Read full judgment →
- M. O. BASHA vs THIRD SIND LABOUR COURT. KARACHI And Another1975 PLC 249 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-07-13Read full judgment →
- M. M. ISPAHANI Ltd., KARACHI vs WORKERS UNION1975 PLC 225 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-26Read full judgment →
- M. ASGHAR BASHIR GORA vs HASSAN KHAN1975 P Cr. L J 7 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-15Read full judgment →
- M. A. IQBAL vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN , .1975 PLC (C.S.T.) 133 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1975-05-30Read full judgment →
- LIVESTOCK FARM LABOUR UNION, OKARA vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, MULTAN REGION, MULTAN _PB, ,1975 PLC 554 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- LILA RAM vs GHULAM ALI AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 294 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The appellant challenged the execution of the decree, arguing that the sale violated the Sind Rural Credit and Land Transfer Act, 1947, which prohibited the alienation of land below a minimum area, and that the execution petition was time-barred. The core legal questions were whether the 1947 Act barred the specific performance decree and whether the execution proceedings were time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the decree was valid and enforceable. The Court determined that the 1947 Act did not impose an absolute bar on alienation, as the Collector could authorize such sales. Furthermore, the Court held that Martial Law Regulation No. 64, which came into force subsequently, superseded the restrictive provisions of the 1947 Act regarding land alienation. Consequently, the execution was deemed lawful and within time. The Court also refused to entertain a belated plea that the land was evacuee property, noting the appellant's prior inconsistent position. The judgment affirms that subsequent regulatory frameworks can override prior statutory restrictions on land alienation.
Questions settled- Does the Sind Rural Credit and Land Transfer Act, 1947, impose an absolute bar on the permanent alienation of agricultural land?
- Does Martial Law Regulation No. 64 supersede the provisions of the Sind Rural Credit and Land Transfer Act, 1947, regarding land alienation?
- Can a party raise a new ground of appeal regarding the status of property as 'evacuee' if it contradicts their previous litigation stance and was not raised in lower courts?
- LIBERTY PRINTERS, KARACHI vs ABDUL WAHID1975 PLC 38 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-07-12Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 21 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-02Read full judgment →
- LEHRASAB KHAN vs CHAIRMAN, P. W. R. And Others , .1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 59 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1975-06-18Read full judgment →
- LALU AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 403 · Sindh High Court · 1972-09-20Read full judgment →
- LALOO Alias ILLABOO AND ANOHER vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1103 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-12Read full judgment →
- LAL MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD USMAN AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two connected petitions for special leave to appeal arising from an election dispute regarding a seat in the Sind Provincial Assembly. The primary issues concerned whether the winning candidate was disqualified due to being under twenty-five years of age at the time of nomination, the admissibility of a foreign birth certificate offered to prove his age, and whether the candidate securing the next highest number of votes should be declared elected upon the winner's unseating. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Election Tribunal and High Court, rejecting the candidate's reliance on an unauthenticated copy of a foreign birth certificate and affirming his disqualification based on his prior written admissions. The Court held that since the winner's disqualification on grounds of age was not notorious to the electorate prior to voting, the votes cast for him could not be regarded as thrown away or void. Consequently, the runner-up candidate could not be automatically declared elected, and a fresh election was properly ordered.
Questions settled- Is a copy of a foreign public document admissible without proper certification or seal of an official as required by evidentiary standards?
- When a winning candidate is unseated for an age-related disqualification that was not notorious to the electors, can the runner-up candidate be automatically declared elected?
- Does the voting for a disqualified candidate result in thrown-away votes if the electors had no notice of the disqualification before casting their ballots?
- LABOUR UNION vs RAHMANIA TEXTILE SILK MILLS No. I Ltd., LYALLPUR , .1975 PLC 525 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-02-19Read full judgment →
- LABOUR UNION vs N/A1975 PLC 34 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-04-26Read full judgment →
- LABOUR UNION vs INDUS GLASS WORKS Ltd., HYDERABAD1975 PLC 580 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-02-17Read full judgment →
- Labour Sind J SAIFUL MALOOK vs Messrs PRINCE GLASS WORKS Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 90 · Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-15Read full judgment →
- Labour N.-W. F. P.L KHYBER TOBACCO Co. Ltd., MARDAN vs LABOUR UNION1975 PLC 282 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-04-10Read full judgment →
- Labour Court Punjab] Present: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, Presiding Officer W.1975 PLC I6 · Punjab Labour Court · 1973-12-14Read full judgment →
- KOHINOOR BATTERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD., KARACHI vs LAL1975 PLC 196 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-07-25Read full judgment →
- KOHINOOR BATTERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES1975 PLC 246 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-03-15Read full judgment →
- KOHINOOR BATTERY MANUFACTURERS Ltd., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1975 PLC 851 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-09-10Read full judgment →
- Khwaja SAMIUL HASAN vs RIAZUL HAQ And 3 Others1975 PLC 700 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-06-09Read full judgment →
- KHUSHAL KHAN vs Syed GINDAL SHAH AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 426 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-24Read full judgment →
- KHUSHAL KHAN vs Syed GINDAL SHAH AND ANOTHER--1975 P Cr. L J 426 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-24Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 614 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-30Read full judgment →
- KHURSH1D HUSSAIN vs DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT1975 PLC 398 · Industrial Court · 1973-01-13Read full judgment →
- KHUDA DINO vs Messrs HIRJINA SALT & CHEMICALS (PAKISTAN) Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 353 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-02-06Read full judgment →
- KHUDA DINO vs Messrs HIRJINA SALT & CHEMICALS (PAK.) Ltd.1975 PLC 458 · Labour Court · 1972-10-21Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 128 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-02Read full judgment →
- KHEMCHAND vs THB STATE---1975 P Cr. L J 520 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-30Read full judgment →
- KHEMC HAND vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 520 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-30Read full judgment →
- Khawaja RIFFAT ALI vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1975 SCMR 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises out of a dispute regarding the division and transfer of a bungalow in Gujranwala between two competing refugee claimants and allottees. The core legal questions involved whether the settlement authorities made a fair and equitable vertical division of the property and whether a Settlement Commissioner was competent to review his earlier order without proper delegation of review powers. The Supreme Court held that the division of the property into independent vertical units was fair, equitable, and within the competence of the settlement authorities. Furthermore, the Court held that a Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain a review and pass an order prior to the date when review powers were formally delegated by notification, rendering subsequent proceedings based on such review illegal and restoring the prior valid orders. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a Settlement Commissioner is competent to review an earlier order without a valid delegation of review powers?
- Can settlement authorities modify the division of a property to ensure a complete and independent vertical division between claimants?
- Does the transfer of a portion of a property not explicitly asked for by a party invalidate the division if it results in a fair and equitable allocation?
- Khawaja FAZAL KARIM vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER--1975 P Cr. L J 757 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-04Read full judgment →