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.
- KAMIL SHAH And Another vs SHAH MUHAMMAD and another---Opponent1972 P Cr. L J 322 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-19Read full judgment →
- KAMAL vs The 'STATE1972 P Cr. L J 26 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-08Read full judgment →
- KALO KHAN vs NISAR MUHAMMAD KHAN AND Other1972 SCMR 602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-12-14Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for special leave to appeal challenges an order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the petitioner's second appeal in limine. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration of ownership, joint possession, and perpetual injunction regarding certain land. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court set aside the decree on the grounds that the defendants had not denied the petitioner's title or interfered with his possession, rendering the suit based on mere apprehension, and that part of the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court upheld the dismissal of the second appeal, refusing discretionary relief under the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court considered whether the lower courts were justified in denying discretionary relief when no cause of action existed. The Supreme Court held that the courts below were fully justified in denying the discretionary relief of declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act as the petitioner's title was not denied and possession was not disturbed. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory decree when the defendants have neither denied his title nor interfered with his possession?
- Is a suit for declaration based on mere apprehension liable to be dismissed for want of a cause of action?
- Can discretionary relief under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act be denied when the plaintiff fails to establish an actual denial of title or interference with possession?
- KALANDER BUX And 3 Others vs The STATE1972 P Cr. L J 820 · Sindh High Court · 1971-09-08Read full judgment →
- K. S.,MUHAMMAD NAWAZ. KHAN vs Mst. NUR BEGUM AND Another1972 SCMR 413 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-10-26Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside a Single Judge's decision regarding the transfer of composite property comprising an industrial concern (flour chakki) and residential rooms. The core legal question was whether residential rooms situated above an industrial concern should be treated as part of that industrial unit or as a separate, transferable entity under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court held that the residential rooms were independent of the industrial concern, noting that the industrial unit had its own separate entrance and that the residential portion was not integral to the industrial operation. The Court affirmed the Division Bench's decision, emphasizing that where an industrial concern occupies only one tenement, other tenements within the same building may be disposed of as independent units. This aligns with the definition of 'house' under the Act and the instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, ensuring that non-industrial portions are not erroneously subsumed into industrial transfers.
Questions settled- Can residential rooms located above an industrial concern be treated as a separate unit for transfer purposes under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Does the presence of a common entrance automatically render residential rooms part of an industrial concern located in the same building?
- Are instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding the separation of industrial units from other tenements valid under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- JUMA KHAN vs Mst. GUL FEROSHA1972 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1971-07-09Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal arises from an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Kohat, refusing to grant custody of two minor sons to their father, Juma Khan, under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The core legal questions concerned the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court over orders passed by a Family Court in guardianship matters and the entitlement of a Muslim father to the custody of sons over seven years of age. The Court held that while the Senior Civil Judge acted as a Family Court, the appeal was correctly filed in the High Court under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. On merits, the Court ruled that under Muslim Law, the father is the natural guardian of sons over seven years, and the mother's continued custody becomes unauthorized. The key principle laid down is that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration, but there is a legal presumption that the minor's welfare lies in being in the custody of the natural guardian under personal law, which must be rebutted by affirmative evidence to the contrary.
Questions settled- Does an appeal against an order passed by a Family Court under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 lie to the High Court under Section 47 of that Act?
- Is a Muslim father entitled to the custody of his minor sons once they have attained the age of seven years?
- Does the appointment of a Family Court under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 exclude the application of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 regarding procedure and appeals?
- Can a father be denied custody of his minor children solely on the ground that he has remarried?
- Jn Re L Mst. ZEB HAMIM KHAN vs NOT1972 PLD Karachi 177 · Sindh High Court · 1967-01-16Read full judgment →
- JEHANGIR PHEROZSHAW DUBASH AND Another vs HOSHANG HOMI BROACHA1972 PLD Karachi 74 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- JEHANGIR KHAN vs The STATE1972 SCMR 221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-04-25Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for the double murder of Mehr Shah and Qadim Shah under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and confirming his death sentence. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution evidence had been assessed in accordance with the principles applicable to the safe dispensation of justice, particularly in light of material inconsistencies between the First Information Report and the statements at trial regarding the identity of the assailant and the motive, as well as contradictions between ocular and medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony was unreliable, that the eyewitnesses were doubtful, and that the medical evidence materially contradicted the prosecution case regarding the nature of the wounds and the absence of charring. Consequently, the Court gave the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction, and acquitted him.
Questions settled- Whether material inconsistencies between the First Information Report and the statements made at trial regarding the assailant can form the basis of a murder conviction?
- Does the absence of charring around entrance wounds at close range undermine the credibility of ocular testimony?
- Whether contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence warrant giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused in a capital punishment case?
- JANNA NA DE MALUCHO TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KOHAT vs WAQAR AHMAD1972 PLD Supreme Court 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-11-16Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal arises from a dispute between a textile mill and its commission agent, involving two concurrent suits: one filed by the appellant at Kohat for recovery of money, and another by the respondent at Lyallpur for rendition of accounts. The respondent obtained a temporary injunction from the Lyallpur Court restraining the appellant from proceeding with the Kohat suit, an order upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether a court can restrain a party from prosecuting a suit in another court of coordinate jurisdiction when the subject matters are not identical. The Supreme Court held that the injunction was improperly granted. The Court reasoned that since the suits involved different reliefs and did not share an identity of subject matter sufficient to trigger Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, both suits should proceed independently on their own merits. The Court emphasized that there was no risk of contradictory decrees, and therefore, the appellant should not have been restrained from pursuing its prior-filed suit at Kohat.
Questions settled- Can a court grant a temporary injunction to restrain a party from proceeding with a suit in another court of coordinate jurisdiction when the subject matters are not identical?
- Does the absence of identity of subject-matter between two suits preclude the application of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Should two suits involving different reliefs be allowed to proceed simultaneously on their own merits?
- JAN MUHAMMAD AND Another vs Malik ABDUL KARIM1972 PLD Azad J & K 58 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1971-10-28Read full judgment →
- Jamot GHULAM MUHAMMAD And 3 Others vs The STATE and anothers1972 P Cr. L J 1130 · Sindh High Court · 1970-07-22Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioners sought the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against them in a private complaint before a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, alleging offenses under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding an alleged breach of contract for the sale of fish. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings based on a transaction that is essentially civil in nature, and lacking evidence of fraudulent intent or mens rea, constitute an abuse of the process of the court. The Court held that the proceedings were an abuse of process, noting that the complaint failed to disclose any criminal liability and that the complainant appeared to be a fictitious person who could not be served. The key principle laid down is that courts must exercise extreme caution and circumspection in private complaints involving civil transactions to prevent the misuse of criminal law as a tool for harassment. Where a dispute is purely civil and lacks the requisite mens rea, criminal proceedings should be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent the perversion of justice.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be quashed when the underlying dispute is purely civil in nature?
- Does a breach of contract, without evidence of fraudulent intent, satisfy the requirements for criminal liability under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings?
- Is a criminal complaint that fails to establish mens rea an abuse of the process of the court?
- JALAL DIN vs CHIRAGH DIN AND 2 Other Opponents1972 PLD Karachi 622 · Sindh High Court · 1970-06-29Read full judgment →
- JALAL Alias JALLA AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1972 SCMR 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-05-15Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioners challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld their convictions under Section 325/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rioting and causing grievous hurt, while setting aside their conviction under Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 due to a lack of evidence regarding deadly weapons. The petitioners argued that the prosecution evidence was interested and unreliable. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court erred in failing to convict the petitioners under Section 147 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 after finding them members of an unlawful assembly but acquitting them of the more serious charge under Section 148. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had correctly appraised the evidence and that the petitioners' guilt was sufficiently proven. The Court found no grounds for interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial and appellate courts.
Questions settled- Can a court convict an accused under Section 147 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the charge under Section 148 fails due to lack of proof regarding deadly weapons?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the reliability of interested witnesses?
- JAIPUR UDYOG LTD. AND ANOTHER vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI1972 PTD 493 · Supreme Court of India · 1968-09-24Read full judgment →
- JAHAN vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1972 P Cr. L J 640 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-06Read full judgment →
- J. K. WOOLLEN MANUFACTURERS vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U. P.1972 PTD 625 · Supreme Court of India · 1968-08-02Read full judgment →
- J. K. COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DISTRICT I(i), KANPUR AND ANOTHER1972 PTD 427 · Allahabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- J. B. ADVANI & Co. (PVT.) LTD. vs R. D. SHAH, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY1972 PTD 168 · Supreme Court of India · 1968-08-22Read full judgment →
- J NOORUDDIN MOOSAJEE vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI1972 PLD Karachi 186 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-03Read full judgment →
- IZHARUL HAQ vs THE STATE1972 PLD Lahore 349 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-11Read full judgment →
- ISMAIL vs S. A. M. KHAN AND 35 Other1972 PLD Lahore 682 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-14Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This writ petition challenged orders passed by revenue authorities concerning the restitution of mortgaged land under the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964. The core legal question was whether a petition for restitution of a usufructuary mortgage is maintainable when the right to redeem the mortgage is time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that a petition under Section 10 of the 1964 Act is not competent if the limitation period for a redemption suit under Article 148 of the Limitation Act, 1908, has expired. The Court established that the expiry of the limitation period for a suit for possession of mortgaged property, pursuant to Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908, operates as extinctive prescription. This process extinguishes the mortgagor's substantive right and title to the property. Consequently, the Collector lacks jurisdiction to order restitution for a mortgage that is no longer subsisting due to the bar of limitation. The impugned orders remanding the case for determination of the mortgage's age were upheld.
Questions settled- Does the expiry of the limitation period for a suit for possession of mortgaged property extinguish the mortgagor's substantive right to the property?
- Is a petition for restitution of a usufructuary mortgage maintainable under the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964, if the mortgage is no longer subsisting due to the bar of limitation?
- Does the Additional Commissioner have the authority to hear appeals against orders of the Collector under the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964?
- ISHWAR LAL And R. B. SURAJ NARAIN (REPRESENTED BY BISHAN NARAIN AND ANOTHER) vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI, RAJASTHAN AND MADHYA PRADESH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI, RAJASTHAN AND MADHYA PRADESH1972 PTD 172 · Supreme Court of India · 1968-08-28Read full judgment →
- ISHTIAQ ALI And Another vs The STATE1972 P Cr. L J 651 · Sindh High Court · 1972-01-24Read full judgment →
- INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, WEST PAKISTAN AND Another vs ABDUR1972 PLD Peshawar 13 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER, KARACHI vs MESSRS AZAD FRIENDS & Co. LTD., KARACHI1972 SCMR 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-02-04Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the Income Tax Commissioner, Karachi, against Messrs Azad Friends & Co. Ltd., Karachi, which was found to be barred by 687 days. The core legal question was whether sufficient cause had been shown to condone the extraordinary delay in filing the petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the explanation proffered regarding the time spent awaiting a copy of the High Court's order was untenable, as no such copy was necessary for filing the petition, and the appeal was not against an order modifying any previous decision. Consequently, the ratio decidendi is that time spent obtaining unnecessary documents does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under limitation principles. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a continuous, cogent, and legally justifiable explanation for every day of delay beyond the prescribed limitation period.
Questions settled- Does the time spent obtaining an unnecessary copy of an order constitute sufficient ground for condoning delay?
- Whether a petition filed with an unexplained delay of hundreds of days can be entertained without valid justification?
- Does an order clarifying that a case depends on its facts amount to a modification of a previous order for limitation purposes?
- INAM UR REHMAN KHAN vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR1972 P Cr. L J 969 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-20Read full judgment →
- In Re: KRUDDSON LTD., KARACHI vs NOT1972 PLD Karachi 376 · Sindh High Court · 1971-12-17Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition was filed under Section 162 of the Companies Act 1913 by two brothers who were minority shareholders and directors in a family-run private limited company, seeking its compulsory winding up on just and equitable grounds. The petitioners alleged that they were systematically excluded from management, denied an effective voice in company affairs, and deprived of their proportionate share of profits following the appointment of a new Managing Director. The core legal question was whether a private limited company should be treated as a partnership firm for winding-up purposes, such that strained relations or a minority shareholder's desire to exit automatically warrants a winding-up order under the just and equitable clause. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that strained relations alone do not justify winding up unless they result in a complete deadlock, exclusion from statutory corporate rights, or a justified lack of confidence in the management's probity. The Court established that while quasi-partnership principles apply to private limited companies, winding up under the just and equitable ground requires proving deadlock, actual exclusion from membership rights, or proven managerial dishonesty.
Questions settled- Whether a private limited company can be treated as a partnership firm for the purposes of a compulsory winding-up petition under the just and equitable clause?
- Does a minority shareholder's desire to dissolve a private limited company automatically entitle them to a compulsory winding-up order?
- What specific grounds must be established to justify the compulsory winding up of a family-run private limited company on just and equitable grounds?
- In Re _ KARAMATULLAH KHAN vs N_A1972 PLD Supreme Court 14 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-10-19Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The Supreme Court of Pakistan initiated contempt of court proceedings under Article 123 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962 against the respondent, a retired government officer, who had sent contemptuous letters directly to sitting Supreme Court Judges and endorsed petitions to executive authorities (including the President, Chief Martial Law Administrator, and Law Minister). The contemner falsely accused Judges of granting private interviews to litigants, scandalous misconduct, and described the Court's functioning as 'ultra-executive and infra-judicial'. Despite having three prior contempt convictions resulting in warnings and fines, the respondent persisted in vilifying and attempting to intimidate the Judges to force a favourable judicial outcome.
The Supreme Court held that accusing Judges of misconduct, scandalizing the judiciary, sending offensive direct letters to Judges, and attempting to intimidate them through executive petitions constitute the worst form of contempt of court. Such actions undermine judicial independence, as Judges must administer justice without fear, favour, or ill-will. The Court convicted the contemner and sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000.
Questions settled- Whether sending contemptuous personal communications to Judges and filing executive petitions against them constitutes contempt of court under Article 123 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962?
- Whether repeating false allegations against Judges after receiving prior warnings and fines warrants a sentence of imprisonment for contempt of court?
- Can a litigant be punished for contempt of court for attempting to intimidate Judges to alter a judicial decision?
- In Re : KARACHI PORT AND DOCK WORKERS WELFARE FUND vs NOT1972 PLD Karachi 41 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-26Read full judgment →
- IMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL-I vs J. K. INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE)1972 PTD 126 · Calcutta High Court · 1968-05-20Read full judgment →
- ILYAS And 2 Others vs The STATE1972 P Cr. L J 20 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-17Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR vs THE STATE1972 PLD Peshawar 27 · Peshawar High Court · 1971-11-05Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the patricide of his father, for which he was sentenced to death by the trial court. The core legal questions involved the reliability and sufficiency of an uncorroborated dying declaration as the sole basis for a capital conviction, the effect of hostile eye-witnesses, and whether youth constitutes an extenuating circumstance warranting a lesser penalty. The Peshawar High Court held that the dying declaration was genuine, made while the deceased was in a fit mental state, and was sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence and ballistic reports matching the crime weapon recovered from the appellant. The court affirmed the conviction, ruling that a reliable dying declaration alone can sustain a murder conviction and that youth by itself is no ground to mitigate the normal death penalty for a calculated murder.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of a dying declaration?
- Whether the non-production of eye-witnesses by the prosecution who have turned hostile draws an adverse inference against the prosecution case?
- Does youth by itself afford a sufficient reason for awarding a lesser penalty than death in a calculated murder case?
- What is the evidentiary preference between a school certificate and an X-ray radiologist report for determining the age of an accused?
- IFTIKHAR JAMIL vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, ARBOR ACRESS PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1972 PLC 492 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1971-12-16Read full judgment →
- IDRIS AHMAD KHAN vs Syed ALI ZAHID RAZA AND ANOTHER1972 PLD Karachi 493 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-20Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This letters patent appeal arises from a judgment dismissing a writ petition filed under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962, concerning the disputed allotment of agricultural land originally surrendered under Martial Law Regulation No. 49. The core legal question was whether the revising officer, Mr. Enver Adil, lacked jurisdiction to decide the revision on February 27, 1960, on the ground that the land stood acquired under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, thereby removing it from the purview of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956. The Sindh High Court held that the notification under section 4 of the 1958 Act only acquired land that was already allotted on the relevant date, and since the disputed land had been surrendered and was unallotted at that time, it was not so acquired. Furthermore, the court held that the appellant had himself invoked the jurisdiction of the rehabilitation authorities, failed to object to the officer's jurisdiction during departmental proceedings, and was guilty of laches. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether land surrendered under Martial Law Regulation No. 49 and unallotted at the time of a notification under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, is covered by such acquisition notification?
- Whether a party who invokes the jurisdiction of rehabilitation officers and fails to object to their authority during departmental proceedings can subsequently challenge their jurisdiction in writ proceedings?
- Does a writ petition challenging an order of a settlement commissioner suffer from fatal laches and negligence if delayed for several years without sufficient explanation?
- IBNE HASSAN vs GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY OF SERVICES & GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS1972 PLC 396 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-04Read full judgment →
- IBNE HASSAN vs GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY OF SERVICES & GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, LAHORE AND 4 Other1972 PLD Lahore 294 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- HYDER RAZA vs NASRULLAH MAFTOON And ANOTHER1972 P Cr. L J 1253 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-24Read full judgment →
- HIRJINA SALT & CHEMICALS (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI vs THE UNION COUNCIL, GHARO AND ANOTHER1972 PLD Karachi 145 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-06Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.These constitutional petitions challenged the levy of market fees (Dharat) by the Gharo Union Council on premises used for manufacturing salt and crushing bones within its jurisdiction. The petitioners contended that Rule 4 of the West Pakistan Union Council Dharat (Fees for Markets) Rules, 1961 was ultra vires, that no services were rendered to justify a fee rather than a tax, that salt was an exclusive central legislative subject under the Constitution, and that no sales took place on the premises since transactions were finalized at Karachi. The Sindh High Court held that Rule 4 was intra vires and protected as an existing law under constitutional provisions, that the fee was legally justified for local supervision and services, that the Union Council levied the fee on the market premises rather than salt itself, and that bone crushing constitutes manufacturing. Applying the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the court further concluded that property in unascertained goods passed to buyers through appropriation upon loading at the manufacturing premises, thus constituting a legal sale within the market area. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether Rule 4 of the West Pakistan Union Council Dharat (Fees for Markets) Rules, 1961 is ultra vires the Basic Democracies Order, 1959?
- Does the levy of market fees on manufacturing premises where goods are produced for sale amount to an unconstitutional tax on salt?
- Whether the process of crushing raw bones into powder constitutes manufacturing for the purpose of market fee rules?
- At what point does property in unascertained goods pass under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 so as to constitute a sale within a declared market area?
- HILAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., LAHORE AND Another vs PAKISTAN1972 PLD Lahore 471 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-15Read full judgment →
- HAZOOR BAKHSH vs The STATE1972 P Cr. L J 698 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1969-10-01Read full judgment →
- HAYAT SHIPPING AGENCIES LTD., KARACHI vs (1) DELTA PIONEER,1972 PLD Karachi 442 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-20Read full judgment →
- HASSAN DIN AND 4 Others vs MUHAMMAD ASGHAR AND 2 Other1972 SCMR 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-10-02Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal regarding a land allotment dispute in Shahdara town. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners, as successors-in-interest to a subsequent allottee, held a valid claim over the land, and whether the failure to provide the petitioners a hearing before the Settlement authorities violated the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit. It determined that the question regarding the validity of the respondent's prior allotment, being a question of fact, could not be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Court held that the respondent, as a temporary allottee since 1953, possessed a preferential right to the land under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. Consequently, the Court affirmed that even if a hearing had been granted to the petitioners, it would not have altered the outcome, thereby upholding the decision of the Settlement authorities and the High Court.
Questions settled- Can a question of fact be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Does the failure to provide a hearing to a subsequent purchaser violate the principles of natural justice when the prior allottee has a clear preferential right?
- Does a temporary allottee have a preferential right to land adjustment under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
- HASSAN DIN And 2 Others vs The STATE1972 P Cr. L J 944 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-02Read full judgment →
- HASSAN ALI M. SOOMRO vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA AND 3 Other1972 PLD Karachi 261 · Sindh High Court · 1971-02-16Read full judgment →
- HASEEMUDDIN vs Tim STATE1972 PCr. L J 241 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-01Read full judgment →
- HASAN RAZAQI And 2 Others vs Mst. MEHRUN NISA MEHR And ANOTHER1972 P Cr. L J 1175 · Sindh High Court · 1970-12-08Read full judgment →
- HARI OM COMPANY vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U. P.1972 PTD 117 · Allahabad High Court · 1968-04-12Read full judgment →
- HAMZO And 2 Others vs The STATE1972 P Cr. L J 478 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-27Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This criminal appeal challenged the convictions and sentences imposed by the Sessions Judge, Larkana, for the murders of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on eye-witness testimony and alleged recoveries of incriminating articles. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court found the eye-witness testimony unreliable due to significant contradictions regarding identification, the visibility conditions, and the timing of the report to the independent witness. Furthermore, the court rejected the evidence of recoveries, noting that the mashirnamas were prepared at the police station rather than the spot, rendering them legally suspect. The court also criticized the trial judge for relying on extra-judicial suggestions regarding the accused's character and for misinterpreting the accused's defense. The key principle laid down is that identification based solely on voice, without strong corroborating evidence, is a weak form of proof, and that recoveries prepared at a police station rather than the scene of the crime lack legal credibility.
Questions settled- Is identification based solely on voice sufficient to sustain a conviction in a murder case without strong corroborating evidence?
- Does the preparation of recovery mashirnamas at a police station instead of the crime scene render the recovery evidence unreliable?
- Can a trial court rely on extra-judicial suggestions regarding the character of the accused to overcome deficiencies in prosecution evidence?
- HAMIDULLAH AND 2 Others vs The STATE1972 SCMR 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-04-14Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal and maintained their convictions for murder, attempted murder, and rioting with deadly weapons. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioners acted in self-defence and whether the prosecution's failure to explain minor injuries sustained by the petitioners vitiates the conviction or establishes that the complainant party was the aggressor. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly appraised the evidence, finding that both sides had engaged in a clash and neither party was entitled to the right of self-defence, and that superficial injuries alone were insufficient to substantiate the plea of self-defence. The key principles laid down are that a plea of self-defence must be proven by the accused from the circumstances of the occurrence or prosecution evidence, and minor unexplained injuries on the accused do not automatically shift the burden or establish aggression by the complainant party.
Questions settled- Whether minor unexplained injuries on the accused are sufficient to establish the right of self-defence?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries on the accused vitiate the conviction where both sides came prepared for a clash?
- When can the Supreme Court re-assess evidence in a petition for special leave to appeal against concurrent findings of lower courts?
- Hajl FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs Haji SOOMAR (RBPRESENTBD BY HEIRS) AND AN03HBR1972 PLD Karachi 459 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-16Read full judgment →
- Haji NAQIBUDDIN vs The STATE1972 P Cr. L J 846 · Sindh High Court · 1970-12-21Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD USMAN And Another vs Haji JAN MUHAMMAD And ANOTHER1972 P Cr. L J 671 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs The STATE1972 PCr. L J 1101 · Lahore High Court · 1972-05-17Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD JAMAL KHAN vs Thf, STATE and anothers1972 P Cr. L J 363 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-09Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.These criminal revisions arose from a dispute regarding the custody of a seized truck under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned the principles governing the release of seized property on superdari to a claimant versus retention by the police pending trial, particularly when ownership or title is disputed. The Lahore High Court held that for the purposes of superdari under sections 516-A and 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the property should ordinarily be restored to the person from whom it was seized or who was last in physical possession through an employee, regardless of underlying civil disputes concerning title or registration under the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965. The court established that an Assistant Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to nullify valid prior superdari orders or withhold seized property from the person last in lawful possession merely because ownership is contested, directing any rival claimant to seek resolution in a civil court.
Questions settled- What are the powers of a criminal court in respect of the disposal and custody of a vehicle under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should seized property be handed over to the person from whose possession it was taken if no offence is proved in respect of the property itself?
- Does a dispute regarding the ownership or title of a vehicle serve as a valid ground for refusing to release it on superdari to the person last in possession?
- Can an Assistant Commissioner nullify earlier superdari orders passed by a court of competent jurisdiction regarding seized property?
- Haji MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs DAWOOD CHAND1972 PLC 315 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1971-09-29Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD ALI vs The STATE1972 P Cr. L J 28 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-13Read full judgment →
- Haji MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN AND 4 Other vs NUR MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 151972 PLD Peshawar 66 · Peshawar High Court · 1971-10-08Read full judgment →
- Haji MOTABAR vs Nawabzada MUHAMMAD UMAR KHAN AND Other1972 SCMR 627 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-12-07Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for special leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the High Court dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal, which arose from a writ petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962. The core legal question concerned whether the Custodian of Evacuee Property lawfully exercised discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay of approximately thirteen years in filing an application under section 22 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957. The Supreme Court held that the Custodian authorities acted upon sufficient reason and evidence in condoning the delay and determining the merits of the case, wherein revenue records established that the property in question was non-evacuee land belonging to a local landlord rather than evacuee property. The Court laid down the principle that the discretionary power to condone delay, when exercised by a competent authority upon proper consideration of un-rebutted evidence and sufficient cause, warrants no interference in constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the discretion vested in an authority under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay can be interfered with when exercised upon sufficient reasons and un-rebutted evidence?
- Can a property be treated as evacuee property when revenue records establish it belongs to a local non-evacuee owner?
- Whether the High Court can interfere in constitutional jurisdiction with a factual determination made by the Custodian of Evacuee Property regarding the status of a property?
- Haji FIDA HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN1972 SCMR 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-06-16Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for leave to appeal arose from a second appeal dismissal by the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which had upheld concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the District Court ordering the petitioner's ejectment. The respondent-landlord sought eviction on the grounds of personal requirement for business expansion and default in rent payment for July and August 1968. The petitioner admitted the non-payment but argued that the default was not wilful due to an alleged practice of lump-sum payments, and that depositing the rent with the Rent Controller prior to the filing of the eviction application cured the default under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The Supreme Court of Pakistan rejected this interpretation, holding that any tender or deposit of rent must be made within the statutory timeframe prescribed by Section 13(2)(i) of the Ordinance to be valid. Consequently, the Court found no error in the High Court's refusal to disturb the concurrent findings of fact and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a deposit of rent with the Rent Controller after the statutory period has expired cures a tenant's default under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Must a tender of rent under the Explanation to Section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 be made within the timeframes prescribed in Clause (i) to be legally valid?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding rent default and personal requirement be disturbed by the High Court in a second appeal?
- Haji FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1972 SCMR 551 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-11-21Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This reference was made by the Lahore High Court requesting the Supreme Court of Pakistan to direct, under Article 9 of the High Court Establishment Order 1970, the consolidation of a settlement revision pending in the Lahore High Court and a writ petition pending in the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan to avoid conflicting decisions. The dispute arose from the allotment of evacuee land to a displaced person, which was subsequently cancelled by the Settlement Commissioner on grounds of fraud, an order challenged in the Lahore revision petition. The Quetta writ petition challenged the validity of the allotment itself. The Supreme Court held that consolidation was unnecessary as the questions involved in the two cases were not identical. The Court observed that if the cancellation order based on fraud is upheld in the Lahore revision, the Quetta writ petition would become infructuous; if not, the Quetta petition could proceed on its merits. Consequently, the Court directed the Lahore High Court to decide the revision expeditiously while postponing the Quetta proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether cases pending in different High Courts must be consolidated if the questions involved in them are not identical?
- Does a finding of fraud by a Settlement Commissioner that cancels an entitlement certificate render a separate pending writ petition challenging the allotment's validity infructuous?
- Can the Supreme Court direct the postponement of a writ petition in one High Court pending the expeditious disposal of a related settlement revision in another High Court?
- HAJ1 And 4 Others vs Thb STATE1972 P Cr. L J 465 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-30Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This criminal appeal and confirmation reference arose from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in death sentences and transportation for life. The core legal question concerned the reliability of ocular testimony, medical evidence regarding the time of death, corroborating motive, and ballistic expert reports in establishing the guilt of the accused for double murder. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentences. The court held that minor discrepancies in estimated post-mortem times and approximate distance estimates do not discredit otherwise credible ocular testimony, which was firmly corroborated by a strong established motive and positive ballistic matches. The key principle laid down is that expert medical opinion regarding the time of death is conjectural and yields to direct, reliable ocular testimony supported by corroborative circumstantial and forensic evidence.
Questions settled- Whether medical opinion regarding the time of death based on a post-mortem examination overrides direct ocular testimony?
- Does the absence of charring marks on a deceased's body render eyewitness accounts of close-range firing inherently unreliable?
- Is a ballistic expert report matching crime empty cartridges to a recovered weapon sufficient to corroborate participation in a murder?
- Whether previous blood feuds and failed compensation agreements constitute a sufficient motive for capital convictions?
- HAIDER ZAMAN vs The STATE1972 SCMR 666 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The appellant, Haider Zaman, was convicted of murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of his paternal uncle by a blow with a hatchet, which conviction and death sentence were upheld by the High Court. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the nature of the offence in light of an alleged discrepancy between the dying statement mentioning a single blow and the medical evidence revealing two injuries, as well as to review the appropriateness of the sentence. The Supreme Court held that the medical evidence reasonably established that both injuries could emanate from a single blow, and since the injury was inflicted on a vital part with a deadly weapon and found sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the conviction for murder was legally correct. However, regarding the sentence, the Court found that extenuating circumstances existed, specifically that the appellant acted in retaliation for a prior assault by the deceased's son upon the appellant's father. Consequently, the Supreme Court maintained the conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code but set aside the death sentence, substituting it with imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Does an inconsistency between a dying statement alleging a single blow and medical evidence showing two injuries vitiate a murder conviction when the medical opinion indicates both injuries could stem from one blow?
- Does an assault causing a serious injury to the appellant's father shortly before the occurrence constitute an extenuating circumstance warranting the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Whether an assault with a deadly weapon on a vital part of the body, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, falls within the definition of murder even without explicit proof of an intention to cause death?
- HAIDER And 6 Others vs The STATE1972 P Cr. L J 938 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-28Read full judgment →
- HAFIZUR REHMAN vs MUHAMMAD IKRAM And 4 OTHERS1972 P Cr. L J 598 · Sindh High Court · 1972-01-11Read full judgment →
- Hafiz MOHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs IMDAD ALI SHAH AND Another1972 SCMR 173 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal challenged a High Court order remanding a criminal case for retrial due to misjoinder of charges. The core legal question was whether the Code of Criminal Procedure (West Pakistan Amendment) Act, 1964, which amended Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to treat misjoinder of charges as a curable irregularity, applied to an appeal pending at the time of the amendment's enactment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in applying the unamended law. The Court determined that provisions governing the mode of trial are procedural in nature, and procedural amendments are retrospective, applying to all pending proceedings unless otherwise specified. Consequently, the amendment to Section 537, which rendered misjoinder of charges a curable irregularity absent a failure of justice, was applicable to the pending appeal. The Court set aside the remand order and directed the High Court to decide the appeal on its merits, establishing that procedural changes affecting the mode of trial operate retrospectively on pending litigation.
Questions settled- Does an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the mode of trial apply to pending criminal appeals?
- Is misjoinder of charges a matter of procedure or a substantive illegality?
- Can a criminal trial be set aside for misjoinder of charges if no failure of justice has occurred?
- Are procedural amendments to the law retrospective in their application to pending proceedings?
- HADAYAT AND Others vs Mst. MEHTAB BIBI AND Another1972 SCMR 243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-06-12Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal concerns whether a female allottee of agricultural land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, who held the original land in India as a limited owner under customary law, acquires absolute ownership of the allotted land in Pakistan. The appellants, claiming as collaterals of the last male owner, challenged a gift made by the widow, Mst. Mehtab Bibi, arguing she remained a limited owner. The Supreme Court, relying on its precedent in Addl. Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha v. Muhammad Shafi, held that an allotment of land in Pakistan in lieu of land abandoned in India by a female limited owner does not confer absolute title. Such land is notionally restored as the husband's property, and the female remains subject to the same customary restrictions. Consequently, the Court ruled that the transfer by the widow was invalid except to the extent of her share under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962. The appeal was allowed, restoring the trial court's decree.
Questions settled- Does a female allottee of agricultural land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, who held the original land as a limited owner, become an absolute owner of the allotted land in Pakistan?
- Are transfers of land made by a female limited owner of evacuee property subject to the same restrictions as those imposed by customary law?
- To what extent is a transfer of land by a female limited owner valid after the enactment of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962?
- HABIBUR RAHMAN vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SUKKUR AND Other1972 PLD Karachi 46 · Sindh High Court · 1971-09-23Read full judgment →
- HABIBULLAH vs Seraie MUKHTAR HUSSAIN and anoihfrs1972 P Cr. L J 692 · Sindh High Court · 1971-05-28Read full judgment →
- HABIBULLAH PARACHA vs STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN1972 P Cr. L J 361 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-25Read full judgment →
- HABIB AHMED vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1972 PLD Lahore 359 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-27Read full judgment →
- HABIB AHMAD KHAN AND 3 Others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND 3 Other1972 SCMR 105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-02-09Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal arises from an order of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, dismissing the appellants' writ petition under Article 98 of the Constitution regarding the allotment of a garden land. The core legal question concerns the propriety of depriving the appellants of their preferential right to allotment under applicable settlement policy letters solely on the ground of hardship to respondents who held prior temporary allotments. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in ignoring the clear order of priority established by the official Memorandum and policy letters, which granted preferential claims to refugees who had abandoned gardens in India over those in lower categories. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and restored the order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner permanently transferring the garden to the appellants.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can decline to enforce established administrative priorities for the allotment of evacuee garden land on equitable grounds of hardship?
- Do claimants who abandoned gardens in India enjoy a preferential right of allotment over temporary allottees under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
- Whether an order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner made in conformity with settlement policy circulars is legally sustainable against subsequent interference without lawful basis?
- HABIB AHMAD AND 2 Others vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1972 SCMR 274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-05-23Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the former West Pakistan High Court, Peshawar Bench, dismissing a civil revision petition concerning the allotment of agricultural land in Tehsil and District Mardan originally made to the appellants as displaced persons from Jammu and Kashmir. The core legal questions involve whether the Deputy Commissioner, Mardan, acted with proper jurisdiction as a delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 11(1) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and whether the said statutory provision applied to land temporarily allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees under the relevant rehabilitation schemes. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Commissioner was duly empowered as a delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under a valid notification and that section 11(1) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, fully applies to temporary allotments made to displaced persons under the scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether the Deputy Commissioner is competent to act as a Deputy Settlement Commissioner and decide disputes as a delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
- Does section 11(1) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 apply to land temporarily allotted to Jammu and Kashmir displaced persons under the rehabilitation scheme?
- H. H. RAJA SIR HARINDAR SINGH vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNJAB1972 PTD 49 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1968-08-01Read full judgment →
- H. H. AHMED vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF1972 PLD Karachi 366 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-23Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This second appeal arose from a suit filed by a landlord seeking compensation for a residential flat requisitioned by the Karachi Administration in 1959. Although the Rent Controller directed the parties to seek arbitration under Section 4 of the Sind Requisition of Land Act 1947, the Government failed to appoint an arbitrator, prompting the landlord to sue in civil court. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court reduced the compensation based on a repealed statutory provision and an informal offer. The High Court analyzed whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by the statutory arbitration machinery. It held that the right to compensation for expropriated property is an inherent constitutional right existing independently of the requisition statute. Where the statutory machinery is rendered illusory or ineffective by the Government's failure to appoint an arbitrator, the conditional ouster of civil jurisdiction is displaced, and the civil court has jurisdiction to determine and award compensation.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of the Government to appoint an arbitrator under a requisition statute entitles the affected property owner to seek compensation directly through a civil court?
- Does the statutory machinery for determining compensation under the Sind Requisition of Land Act 1947 completely oust the jurisdiction of civil courts if that machinery is rendered ineffective by state inaction?
- Whether liabilities incurred by the Central Government in relation to the federal territory of Karachi were transferred to the Province of West Pakistan under President's Order No. 9 of 1961?
- H. G. MISRA & Co. vs APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1972 PTD 247 · Allahabad High Court · 1968-10-31Read full judgment →
- GULZAR BEGUM vs Mst. SAIRAH BIBI1972 SCMR 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-06-23Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter arose from an eviction dispute concerning evacuee property transferred to the respondent under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The respondent filed a suit for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent, asserting that a notice under Section 30 of the Act had been served on the appellant. The appellant denied service of the notice, thereby rebutting the presumption of service. The Rent Controller framed preliminary issues regarding the validity of the notice and the status of the Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.). The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where a tenant denies service of notice on oath, the presumption of service is rebutted. Consequently, the trial court must compare the disputed signature with admitted signatures and provide the landlord an opportunity to produce the postman to prove delivery and signature. The Court set aside the trial court's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision in accordance with these directions.
Questions settled- How can a tenant rebut the presumption of service of a statutory notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- What procedure must a trial court follow to determine the validity of service when a tenant denies receiving a notice and signing the acknowledgment due?
- Is the testimony of a postman or a comparison of signatures necessary to prove service of notice if the recipient denies their signature on the acknowledgment receipt?
- GULZAR AHMAD vs THE CHAIRMAN, ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE1972 PLC 614 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-10Read full judgment →
- GULFRAZ vs THE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF WEST PAKISTAN, Peshawars1972 SCMR 227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-11-19Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioner, an orderly in the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, challenged his removal from service, which followed an initial dismissal order for misconduct. The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the High Court's decision, which had modified his dismissal to removal. The core legal question was whether an administrative order passed by a High Court Judge is appealable to the Supreme Court under Article 58 of the abrogated Constitution of 1962. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the order of dismissal was passed in an administrative capacity rather than a judicial one. The Court ruled that the term 'order' in Article 58 must be interpreted ejusdem generis with 'judgment, decree, or sentence.' Consequently, the Court established the principle that only orders passed by a High Court in the exercise of its judicial functions and authority are amenable to appeal before the Supreme Court, thereby excluding administrative orders from the scope of such appellate jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is an administrative order passed by a High Court Judge appealable to the Supreme Court under Article 58 of the 1962 Constitution?
- Does the term 'order' in Article 58 of the 1962 Constitution include administrative orders passed by the High Court?
- Are only judicial orders of the High Court amenable to appeal in the Supreme Court?
- GUL ZAMAN vs SHER ZAMAN AND Other1972 PLD Azad J & K 26 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1971-09-18Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1972 SCMR 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-10-31Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This is an appeal by special leave preferred by Gul Muhammad against the judgment of the High Court upholding his conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction of the appellant could be sustained in the absence of reliable corroborative evidence, given that the High Court itself had held that it was unsafe to convict on the testimony of interested eyewitnesses without corroboration. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had misread the evidence regarding the alleged recovery of blood-stained clothes from the appellant, as no such recovery memo existed and the investigating officers made no mention of it. Holding that there was a complete lack of corroborative evidence against the appellant, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered his immediate release. The key principle laid down is that where a court requires corroboration for interested eyewitness testimony, a conviction cannot stand based on a misreading of the record regarding alleged corroborative evidence.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained on the testimony of interested eyewitnesses without independent corroboration?
- Does the misreading of evidence regarding the recovery of incriminating articles vitiate a conviction?
- Is an accused entitled to acquittal when the corroborative piece of evidence relied upon by the lower court is absent from the record?
- GUL MUHAMMAD vs CHAIRMAN, ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LAHORE1972 PLC 474 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-11Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD AND OTHER vs NOT1972 PLD Azad J & K 90 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1972-03-05Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD Alias GULF.00 vs The STATE and anothers1972 P Cr. L J 374 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-06Read full judgment →
- GUL HAQ AND OTHERS vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, CENTRAL1972 SCMR 576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-12-11Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the dismissal of a second appeal by the Peshawar High Court, which maintained the lower courts' dismissal of the petitioners' suit for a declaration of ownership of agricultural property. The core legal questions involved whether the civil court had jurisdiction to question orders passed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property and whether mutations attested after March 1947 could confer title. The Supreme Court held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to question the Custodian's orders regarding the evacuee nature of the property, rendering the suit rightly dismissed on that ground alone, and noted that the proper remedy to challenge the Custodian's order was a writ petition rather than a civil suit. The court laid down the principle that civil courts cannot interfere with matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Custodian of Evacuee Property under evacuee laws.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to question an order passed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property regarding the evacuee nature of a property?
- What is the proper remedy to challenge an order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property passed under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act XII of 1957?
- Are mutations entered and attested after the 1st of March 1947 effective for the purpose of conferring title in respect of evacuee property?
- GUL And 4 Others vs Thb STATE1972 P Cr. L J 506 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-21Read full judgment →
- GOPICHAND SARJUPRASAD vs UNION OF INDIA1972 PTD 83 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1969-01-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM YARYA AND Others vs GHULAM SADIQ AHD Other1972 SCMR 599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-12-16Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court setting aside a Magistrate's order in proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and directing him to proceed under section 146(1) of the Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly endorsed the finding that neither party was in possession of the disputed land and whether section 146(1) of the Code was properly invoked. The Supreme Court held that the High Court examined the evidence and rightly concluded that the land was not in the possession of either party, thereby justifying the direction to follow section 146(1) of the Code. The key principle laid down is that where a Magistrate concludes that neither party was in possession of the disputed property in proceedings under section 145, the mandatory procedure under section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be followed.
Questions settled- What procedure must a Magistrate follow when neither party is found to be in possession of disputed property in proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the High Court is justified in directing proceedings under section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon concluding that oral and revenue evidence regarding possession is inconclusive?
- GHULAM SARWAR vs The STATE1972 P Cr. L J 727 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1970-02-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR vs HASSAN ASKARI And 4 OTHERS1972 P Cr. L J 551 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASUL AND 6 Others vs The STATE1972 P Cr. L J 565 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-02Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL vs The STATE1972 PCr. L J 517 · Sindh High Court · 1971-05-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR vs SARKAR1972 PLD Azad J & K 42 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1972-01-24Read full judgment →
- GHULAM NABI AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS NAWAB INDUSTRIES, SUKKUR1972 PLC 416 · Labour Court · 1971-11-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs MOOR MUHAMMAD AND 4 Other1972 SCMR 339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-07-06Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the son of the murdered person against the judgment and order of the High Court at Lahore acquitting the first four respondents, who had been originally convicted by the Sessions Judge under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to transportation for life. The core legal question is whether the delay of 116 days in filing the petition for special leave to appeal can be condoned based on the unverified illness of the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the petition is barred by time, as delay in filing a petition against an order of acquittal cannot be condoned without showing compelling circumstances precluding timely filing, and no medical certificate or valid ground was provided. The key principle laid down is that delay in filing a petition for special leave to appeal against an acquittal will not be condoned in the absence of compelling circumstances or acts of the respondents preventing timely filing.
Questions settled- Can delay in filing a petition for special leave to appeal against an acquittal be condoned on the ground of the petitioner's illness without supporting medical evidence?
- What circumstances must be shown to condone delay in filing a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1972 SCMR 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-12-07Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The appellant, Ghulam Muhammad, along with his father, was tried for an offence under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The father was acquitted, but the appellant was convicted under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment, which was upheld on appeal and revision. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to consider whether criminal liability for retaining stolen property recovered from a jointly occupied house could be exclusively fixed on the appellant. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish the recovery and that, even if the recovery from the joint house were believed, possession could not be conclusively attributed exclusively to the appellant, especially given that his co-accused father was the head of the family. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Can criminal liability for the retention of stolen property be exclusively fixed on one occupant when the recovery is made from a house jointly occupied by multiple persons?
- Whether a conviction under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained when the evidence regarding the recovery of the stolen property is contradictory and unreliable?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR1972 SCMR 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-06-30Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a dispute over land allotment under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The petitioner, claiming to be a refugee who was a minor at the time of Independence, sought to overturn lower court decisions that cancelled his allotment. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioner was indeed a minor at the time of Partition and whether a new argument regarding entitlement under the Rehabilitation Scheme could be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. The Court held that the lower courts' findings of fact regarding the petitioner's age were based on evidence and would not be disturbed. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioner could not introduce a new point involving factual investigation, specifically regarding the availability of land for non-allottees, for the first time at the Supreme Court level. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reaffirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact are generally final and that new arguments requiring factual inquiry cannot be entertained at the final appellate stage.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new point involving factual investigation for the first time in the Supreme Court?
- Is a finding of fact regarding a party's age, based on evidence, subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does the failure of a party to appear in court when ordered justify the dismissal of an appeal?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ASADULLAH SIDDIQUI1972 SCMR 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-06-23Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had upheld the eviction of a tenant by a transferee landlord on the grounds of default in rent payment. The tenant had challenged the identity of the property transferred and the service of notice under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Rent Controller, affirmed by the Additional District Judge, found against the tenant on these preliminary issues and ordered the deposit of arrears and future rent under the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, concurred with the lower courts regarding the identity of the property and dismissed the second appeal. The Supreme Court held that the validity of the transfer order in favour of the respondent could not be challenged in ordinary civil proceedings or rent litigation, as such challenges are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the High Court via writ petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's order and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can the validity of a transfer order under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 be challenged in rent eviction proceedings?
- Is a writ petition the exclusive remedy for challenging the validity of a transfer order in favour of a transferee landlord?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD And 2 Others vs The STATE1972 P Cr. L J 993 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MOHAMMAD vs The STATE1972 SCMR 391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-10-25Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a revision petition filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the attempted murder of Mali Khan. The core legal question concerns whether the refusal of the trial court to recall the Medical Expert and the Investigating Officer for cross-examination under Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 caused prejudice to the petitioner, and whether the sentence imposed was excessive. The Supreme Court held that no prejudice was caused, as the official witnesses' testimony and cross-examination would not have altered the nature of the injuries, and noted that after the amendment of Section 257 by Act XVII of 1964, prosecution witnesses can only be cross-examined at one stage without an inherent right of recall. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an accused have an inherent right to recall prosecution witnesses for cross-examination after failing to avail the initial opportunity?
- Whether the refusal to recall a Medical Expert and Investigating Officer for cross-examination causes material prejudice to the accused under Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of sentence by lower courts unless the sentence is against law or sound judicial principles?