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.

• WAKIL AHMED vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PAKISTAN GAS LTD., DACCA1971 PLC 275 · Labour Court · 1970-08-15Read full judgment →
• WAJAHAT ALI vs ALI GAUHAR SHAIKH AND Another1971 P Cr. L J 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1971-05-03Read full judgment →
• WAHEED KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER1971 PLD Karachi 273 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-22Read full judgment →
• WAHAB SADIN AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1971 PLD Peshawar 135 · Peshawar High Court · 1971-04-28Read full judgment →
• VITHALDAS vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DISTRICT II(ii), KANPUR1971 PTD 411 · Allahabad High Court · 1968-02-29Read full judgment →
• VELJI DEORAJ & Co. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY II1971 PTD 14 · Bombay High Court · 1967-09-13Read full judgment →
• VALIKA CEMENT LABOUR UNION vs VALIKA CEMENT LTD., KARACHI1971 PLC 409 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1970-11-07Read full judgment →
• V. VR. P. N. VR. NAGAPPA CHETTIAR AND ANOTHER vs UNION OF INDIA1971 PTD 895 · Madras High Court · 1968-03-01Read full judgment →
• V. VENUGOPALA VARMA RAJAH vs CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, KERALA1971 PTD 846 · Kerala High Court · 1968-10-17Read full judgment →
• V. PL. V. VELLAYAPPA CHETTIAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS1971 PTD 331 · Madras High Court · 1968-02-15Read full judgment →
• V. PL. FIRM vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS1971 PTD 222 · Madras High Court · 1968-01-31Read full judgment →
• UPPER INDIA SUGAR EXCHANGE LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U. P.1971 PTD 1054 · Allahabad High Court · 1968-09-10Read full judgment →
• UMRAO HUSSAIN vs THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT1971 PLC 148 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1970-07-02Read full judgment →
• UMAR HAYAT vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 557 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-06Read full judgment →
• UMAR GUL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1971 PLD Peshawar 123 · Peshawar High Court · 1971-03-10Read full judgment →
• UMAID ALI ANOTHER vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 67 · Sindh High Court · 1971-02-21Read full judgment →
• TUFAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN HAQ NAWAZ KHAN, GUARD, P. W. R., KHANEWAL AND1971 SCMR 688 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-10-18Read full judgment →
• TUFAIL MUHAMMAD vs NISAR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1971 PLD Lahore 48 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-20Read full judgment →
• TUBE INVESTMENTS OF INDIA LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, MADRAS1971 PTD 1069 · Madras High Court · 1968-07-29Read full judgment →
• TRIPURA MODERN BANK LTD. (PAKISTAN ZONE), CHITTAGONG vs Khan1971 PLD Supreme Court 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-11-28
  equitable mortgagemunicipal tax salefirst chargeencumbrancecollusive salemortgagee's remedysurplus sale proceeds
  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 suit for the realization of money based on an equitable mortgage created by deposit of title deeds. The core legal questions involve whether a sale of property for arrears of municipal tax under the Bengal Municipal Act passes the property free from encumbrances, whether the mortgagee's sole remedy is restricted to claiming the surplus sale proceeds under Section 73(1) of the Transfer of Property Act, and whether the lower appellate court properly evaluated the evidence regarding an alleged collusive sale. The Supreme Court held that the Bengal Municipal Act contains no provision making a tax sale free from encumbrances, meaning a purchaser acquires the property subject to a subsisting mortgage, and Section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act does not restrict the mortgagee from following the mortgaged property. Furthermore, the High Court erred in reversing the trial court's finding of collusion without considering material circumstances such as gross undervaluation and continued possession. The appeal is allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does a purchaser of property at a municipal tax sale under section 525 of the Bengal Municipal Act acquire the property free from all encumbrances?
  • Is a mortgagee's only remedy upon the sale of mortgaged property for public charges restricted to claiming the surplus sale proceeds under section 73(1) of the Transfer of Property Act?
  • Does the first charge created for municipal dues under section 167 of the Bengal Municipal Act extinguish a prior equitable mortgage on the property?
  • Can a mortgagee follow and proceed against the mortgaged property directly when it is sold for arrears of municipal taxes?
  Read full judgment →
• TILE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, HYDERABAD vs FAKIR MOHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1971 PLC 132 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1970-07-01Read full judgment →
• THF STATE THF STATE vs RASOOL BAKHSH GHULAM ABBAS1971 SCMR 817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-12-02
  briberyillegal gratificationtrap evidencepresumption of guiltadmissibility of evidencecorruptioncriminal investigation
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns three appeals against High Court orders that set aside convictions for bribery, relying on an erroneous Full Bench ruling regarding the admissibility of statements made during trap proceedings. The core legal questions addressed whether statements made by an accused to a Magistrate during a trap are admissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and when an investigation formally commences in corruption cases. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reliance on the overruled Full Bench decision was incorrect. The Court ruled that statements made to a Magistrate during a trap are admissible and not barred by Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court clarified that an investigation does not commence merely upon receiving a complaint of a bribe demand. The key principle laid down is that once the prosecution proves the receipt of money by the accused, the statutory presumption of guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 applies, shifting the burden to the accused to prove the receipt was not illegal gratification.

  Questions settled

  • Are statements made by an accused to a Magistrate during a trap admissible in evidence?
  • Does the investigation of a corruption offence commence upon the initial complaint of a bribe demand?
  • Does the statutory presumption of guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 apply once the receipt of money is proven?
  • Can a statement made by an accused to a Magistrate during a trap be excluded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• THE WORKMEN OF WEST PAKISTAN IRRIGATION WORKSHOP' HYDERABAD vs THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN1971 PLC 134 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1970-09-12Read full judgment →
• THE WORKERS OF BATA SHOE Co., LAHORE vs BATA SHOE Co., LTD. AND ANOTHER1971 PLC 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-10-19
  industrial disputeworkman definitionillegal strikelock-outforeman statustermination of serviceindustrial relations
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal arises from an industrial dispute between the Bata Shoe Company and its workers, challenging an Industrial Court award that rejected most of the workers' demands. The core legal questions concerned whether Foremen qualify as 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whether the dismissal of specific employees was justified, and whether the strike of March 27, 1958, constituted an illegal strike or a response to an illegal lock-out. The Supreme Court held that Foremen, whose primary duties involve supervision and control, do not fall within the definition of 'workman' and thus cannot raise industrial disputes regarding their service conditions. The Court further determined that the strike was illegal, as the company’s disciplinary termination of employees did not constitute a 'lock-out' under the Act. Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal of employees involved in the illegal strike but ordered the reinstatement of one employee whose transfer was found improper. The judgment establishes that supervisory staff are excluded from the definition of 'workman,' and that disciplinary termination of service does not equate to a 'lock-out.'

  Questions settled

  • Does a Foreman, whose duties involve supervision and control, qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
  • Does the disciplinary termination of an employee's service constitute a 'lock-out' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
  • Can workmen raise an industrial dispute regarding the service conditions of employees in a superior category, such as Foremen?
  • Is a strike declared in response to the disciplinary dismissal of employees considered an illegal strike if it contravenes the notice requirements of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
  Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Syed MASOOD AHMED1971 P Cr. L J 1216 · Sindh High Court · 1970-05-07Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs SALEHOON--Accused1971 PLD Lahore 292 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-13
  Section 429 CrPC referencedifference of opinionappeal against acquittalocular evidencecorroborationrecovery of weapontransportation for lifecommon intention
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This reference arose under Section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 following a difference of opinion between two Division Bench Judges regarding the acquittal of respondent Salehoon in a State appeal against acquittal for multiple murders under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal questions involved the scope of duty and powers of a third referee judge under Section 429, the standard for reversing an acquittal, and whether direct ocular testimony required independent corroboration when other co-accused were granted the benefit of doubt without a finding of false implication. The High Court held that a third judge under Section 429 has the power and duty to examine the whole case afresh independently and is not bound to lean in favour of acquittal. It found the ocular evidence of natural and related eyewitnesses credible, further corroborated by motive, the respondent's proximity to the crime scene, and the recovery of a weapon. Consequently, the High Court set aside Salehoon's acquittal, convicted him under Section 302/34, and sentenced him to concurrent terms of transportation for life.

  Questions settled

  • What is the duty and scope of powers of a third judge to whom a criminal case is referred under Section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon a difference of opinion between two appellate judges?
  • Is a third judge acting under Section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 obliged as a matter of law or prudence to adopt the opinion favouring acquittal?
  • Does the granting of the benefit of doubt to certain co-accused necessitate independent corroboration before acting upon the same eyewitness testimony against another accused?
  • Under what principles may the High Court reverse an order of acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs QALANDAR KHAN1971 PLD Peshawar 119 · Peshawar High Court · 1971-03-26
  acquittal appealvitiated trialcarbon copy of evidenceillegal procedureremand for retrialfalsification of accountscriminal procedure
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal was brought by the State under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the acquittal of the respondent, who was accused of falsification of accounts and fraud while serving as a ledger clerk in a cooperative bank. The core legal question before the High Court was whether a criminal trial is vitiated when a trial magistrate relies upon carbon copies of witness testimonies recorded in separate, distinct cases instead of examining witnesses independently on the record of the case at hand. The Peshawar High Court held that utilizing carbon copies of witness depositions from other proceedings constitutes an illegal procedure that vitiates the trial, as every criminal proceeding must be decided exclusively upon evidence properly recorded within that specific case. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and remanded the matter for a fresh trial before a competent magistrate with directions to properly examine the witnesses and render an independent judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the use of carbon copies of witness depositions from another case vitiate a criminal trial?
  • Can a criminal court base its decision on evidence or findings recorded in a separate judicial proceeding?
  • What is the legal consequence when a trial magistrate adopts irregular procedures regarding the examination of recalled witnesses?
  • Whether an appellate court can set aside an acquittal and remand the case for a fresh trial upon finding a fundamental illegality in the trial procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUMTAZ ALI AND 4 OTHERS1971 P Cr. L J 808 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-05Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD GHUFRAN AND 5 OTHERS1971 P Cr. L J 792 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-20Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM1971 P Cr. L J 1125 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-26Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Mst. JAMILA KHATOON AND 3 Others1971 P Cr. L J 357 · Sindh High Court · 1969-04-08Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs Mirza MOHIUDDIN AHMAD AND 15 OTHERS1971 P Cr. L J 412 · Sindh High Court · 1969-06-23Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs JHAMANDAS AND 3 OTHERS1971 P Cr. L J 796 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-02Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs IQBAL AHMED AND Others1971 P Cr. L J 745 · Sindh High Court · 1966-01-31Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs HASHAM KHAN ETC.1971 PLD Peshawar 164 · Peshawar High Court · 1971-01-11Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs HAMTHO1971 SCMR 686 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1968-09-17
  special procedurecustoms offencecriminal procedure codepolice challanspecial leave to appeal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan upholding the acquittal of the respondent. The respondent was initially convicted by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate under section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act. The core legal question was whether police officers could challan and send up persons for trial under the ordinary procedure of the Criminal Procedure Code for offences under the Land Customs Act and Sea Customs Act, or if the special procedure requiring a complaint by a Land Customs Officer under section 7(2) of the Land Customs Act applied. The Supreme Court held that where a statute creates a special offence and prescribes a special procedure for its trial, that specific procedure must be followed to the exclusion of the ordinary procedure. Finding no provision in the Sea Customs Act or Land Customs Act authorising police challans under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does an amendment empowering police officers as land customs officers confer the power to send up cases for trial in a manner other than that prescribed by section 7(2) of the Land Customs Act 1924?
  • Must a special procedure laid down by a statute for the trial of a special offence be followed instead of the ordinary procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code?
  • Do police officers have the authority to send up persons accused of contraventions of the Sea Customs Act for trial under a challan under the Criminal Procedure Code?
  Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs GHULAM AHMAD1971 PLD Peshawar 198 · Peshawar High Court · 1971-04-01Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs FAIZ MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1971 P Cr. L J 264 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-24Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs EJAZ MAHMOOD AND 4 OTHERS1971 PLD Lahore 445 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-30Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs CHIRAGH SHAH AND 4 OTHERS1971 PLD Peshawar 233 · Peshawar High Court · 1971-07-12Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs BACHAL AND 8 OTHERS1971 P Cr. L J 1129 · Sindh High Court · 1971-05-20Read full judgment →
• THE STATE vs ASHIQ AND 4 OTHERS1971 P Cr. L J 849 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-04Read full judgment →
• THE STATE THROUGH COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE & LAND CUSTOMS, LAHQRE1971 P Cr. L J 965 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-08Read full judgment →
• THE STATE THE STATE vs QASIM Alias QASSU ABDULLAH BHATTI AND 3 Other1971 SCMR 249 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• THE STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN, DACCA vs Sk. MAHBOOBAR RAHMAN AND ANOTHER1971 SCMR 642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1965-06-14
  Foreign Exchange Regulation Actexport proceedsrepatriation of foreign exchangebuyer defaultcriminal liabilityacquittaltrade bills
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal arose from the acquittal of the respondent, who was charged with an offense under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act regarding the export of hides to India. The respondent had undertaken to repatriate foreign exchange proceeds through a bank, but the foreign buyer defaulted, and the bills were returned unpaid. The core legal question was whether the respondent’s failure to repatriate foreign exchange proceeds constituted a violation of the Act, specifically regarding the conditions of export and payment realization. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was rightly acquitted. The Court reasoned that the undertaking to deliver foreign exchange proceeds was contingent upon such proceeds being earned. Since the evidence established that no foreign exchange was acquired due to the buyer's default, and there was no proof of delay or receipt of payment through unauthorized channels, no offense was committed. The key principle laid down is that where an exporter has acted in good faith and the failure to repatriate proceeds results solely from a foreign buyer's default, there is no violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to repatriate foreign exchange proceeds constitute an offense under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act when the foreign buyer defaults on payment?
  • Is an exporter liable under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act if no foreign exchange is actually acquired from a transaction?
  • Does the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act prohibit an exporter from receiving payment through authorized banking channels?
  Read full judgment →
• THE SECRETARY, EAST PAKISTAN ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs THE E. P.1971 PLC 24 · Labour Court · 1970-07-01Read full judgment →
• THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs MESSRS1971 PLD Karachi 314 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-02Read full judgment →
• THE ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES' UNION (REGD.), LYALLPUR AND 11 Other vs THE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE1971 PLC 179 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1970-11-03Read full judgment →
• THE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE vs TALIB HUSSAIN1971 PLC 331 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1971-04-16Read full judgment →
• THE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE vs SHER MOHAMMAD1971 PLC 212 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1970-06-11Read full judgment →
• THE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE vs LAL KHAN1971 PLC 210 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1970-06-09Read full judgment →
• THE RELIANCE BANK LTD., COMILLAPlaintiff vs THE UNITED BANK OF INDIA LTD.1971 PLD Dacca 15 · Dacca · 1970-02-26Read full judgment →
• THE PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN vs THE PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN1971 PLD Supreme Court 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-08-31
  Wakf Estatesofficial gazettepublication of notificationstate acquisitionrent-receiving interestappeal against dead personsubsequent eventslimitation
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter involved four civil appeals arising from a judgment of the High Court of East Pakistan concerning the acquisition of rent-receiving interests in various Wakf Estates by the Province of East Pakistan under section 3(1) of the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950. The core legal questions revolved around whether the acquisition notifications were duly published in the official Gazette before their effective dates, whether subsequent events or general notifications could cure defective initial notifications, and whether an appeal filed against a deceased party could be maintained after a prolonged delay in amending the cause title. The Supreme Court held that mere printing of a notification does not amount to publication; actual communication or issuance to the public in the manner usually adopted is required for a notification to take legal effect on the specified date. The Court further held that a delayed amendment of a cause title against a deceased respondent without sufficient cause renders the appeal time-barred, and the appellant cannot introduce a new general notification at the appellate stage to defeat the plaintiffs' suit. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere printing of a notification constitutes publication in the official Gazette under section 3(1) of the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950?
  • Can an appellant rely on a subsequent general notification raised for the first time at the appellate stage to cure a defective initial acquisition notification?
  • Whether an appeal filed against a deceased respondent where the cause title is amended after an unexplained delay of over twelve hundred days is barred by limitation?
  • Does the abrogation of the Constitution of 1956 and the advent of Martial Law abate writ petitions challenging the validity of statutes on the basis of fundamental rights?
  Read full judgment →
• THE PRESIDENT--Referring Authority vs MR. JUSTICE SHAUK ALI1971 PLD Supreme Court 585 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1971-07-12Read full judgment →
• THE PARKER PEN COMPANY vs ERO-FULLHALTER FABRIK LUDWIG1971 PLD Karachi 579 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-01Read full judgment →
• THE PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD. LABOUR UNION, DACCA vs THE CHAIRMAN, FIRST LABOUR COURT OF EAST PAKISTAN AND 5 OTHERS1971 PLD Dacca 190 · Dacca · 1970-03-13Read full judgment →
• THE MANAGING EDITOR, THE DAILY AZADI, CHITTAGONG vs CHITTAGONG1971 PLC35 · Labour Court · 1970-03-26Read full judgment →
• THE INDIA FLOUR MILLS WORKERS' UNION vs MESSRS INDIA FLOUR MILLS LTD., KARACHI1971PLC150 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
• THE EASTERN FEDERAL UNION INSURANCE CO. LTD., KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD1971 PLD Karachi 671 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE EAST PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, COMILLA-1971 PLD Dacca 200 · Dacca · 1970-03-31Read full judgment →
• THE EAST PAKISTAN AIRLINES PILOTS ASSOCIATION, vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN1971PLC42 · Labour Court · 1970-08-10Read full judgment →
• THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, P. W. RAILWAY, QUETTA vs MIAN1971 PLD Quetta 23 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-10-05Read full judgment →
• THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, SUKKUR vs JAUHAR ALI1971 PLC 399 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1970-07-31Read full judgment →
• THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, SUKKUR vs AZIZULLAH1971 PLC 404 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1970-07-31Read full judgment →
• THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, SUKKUR vs ABDUL GHAFOOR AND ANOTHER1971 PLC 141 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1970-09-17Read full judgment →
• THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, HYDERABAD vs GHULAM ABBAS AND ANOTHER1971 PLC 403 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1970-09-14Read full judgment →
• THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, HYDERABAD vs ABDUL MAJEED AND ANOTHER1971 PLC 177 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1970-09-16Read full judgment →
• The CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, WEST PAKISTAN vs MRS. DOREEN BARKAT RAM AND ANOTHER1971 SCMR 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1964-01-22
  evacuee propertycustodian of evacuee propertycompromise decreejurisdiction of civil courtsadministration suitwrit of certiorarireview jurisdiction
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal arises from a writ petition challenging an order by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, which had reviewed and restored a compromise decree in an administration suit. The respondent, a non-evacuee widow, had obtained a compromise decree in 1948 regarding joint family properties, which were subsequently treated as evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the Custodian possessed the authority to validate a compromise decree passed by a civil court during a period when the civil court's jurisdiction over evacuee property matters had been expressly excluded by statute. The Supreme Court held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to pass the compromise decree in 1948 due to the West Punjab Protection of Evacuee Property Act 1948, rendering the decree a nullity. Consequently, the Custodian could not validate an inherently invalid decree under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957. The Court affirmed that statutory provisions excluding civil court jurisdiction over evacuee property are absolute, and the Custodian’s power to approve past decrees does not extend to nullities passed without jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Custodian of Evacuee Property have the power to validate a decree passed by a civil court that lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter?
  • Can a compromise decree passed by a civil court regarding evacuee property after the enactment of the West Punjab Protection of Evacuee Property Act 1948 be considered valid?
  • Does the power of the Custodian to approve or accept decrees under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 extend to decrees that were nullities from their inception?
  Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER. OF INCOME-TAX-Applicant vs MESSRS SHENNIHON1971 PTD 429 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-10Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINM vs Haji1971 PTD 260 · Peshawar High Court · 1971-01-28Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI vs Haji1971 PLD Peshawar 111 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NORTH ZONE, WEST PAKISTAN vs MR. MANZUR QADIR1971 PTD 467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-04-26
  income taxcash system of accountingannuity bondsmoney's worthprofessional incometax assessmentagency
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal concerns the taxability of professional fees received by an advocate through annuity bonds. The respondent, an advocate maintaining accounts on a "cash system," arranged for clients to pay his fees by purchasing annuity bonds rather than paying lump sums. The Income-tax Department sought to assess the full value of these bonds as income in the year of purchase. The Supreme Court held that the annuity bonds did not constitute "money's worth" for the entire amount because they were non-transferable, non-saleable, and could not be converted into cash. Consequently, the assessee was not liable to pay tax on the full capital value of the bonds in the year of purchase. The Court affirmed that under the "cash system" of accounting, income is taxable only when actually received. The arrangement did not create an agency relationship between the client and the assessee, nor did it represent a receipt of the full fee amount. The Court concluded that only the annual payments actually received by the assessee were subject to taxation.

  Questions settled

  • Does an annuity bond that is non-transferable and non-saleable constitute 'money's worth' for the purpose of income tax assessment?
  • Can an assessee maintaining accounts on a 'cash system' be taxed on the full value of an annuity purchased by a client in the year of purchase?
  • Does a client purchasing an annuity bond at the direction of a professional constitute an agent of that professional for the purpose of receiving income?
  Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NORTH ZONE (WEST PAKISTAN), LAHORE1971 PLD Lahore 20 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-20Read full judgment →
• THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs MESSRS SHENNIHON STEAMSHIP Co.1971 PLD Karachi 605 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LAHORE vs THE WEST PAKISTAN LABOUR1971 PLD Lahore 348 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-30Read full judgment →
• THE AREA MANAGER, MERCK SHARP AND DOHME OF PAKISTAN LTD., DACCA1971 PLC 406 · Dacca · 1969-11-19Read full judgment →
• THB DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, HYDERABAD vs NISAR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1971 PLC 146 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1970-09-15Read full judgment →
• TAZAL HAQUE A ND OTHERS vs MD. AFFAN AND ANOTHER1971 PLD Dacca 158 · Dacca · 1968-03-07Read full judgment →
• TAURGUL vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 474 · Sindh High Court · 1970-01-20Read full judgment →
• TANZEEM-E-MULAZAMIN BALDIYA AND 2 OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF WEST1971 PLD Karachi 535 · Sindh High Court
  Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969Collective Bargaining AgentTrade Union referendumdirectory vs mandatory provisionsvoter list irregularitiesstatutory interpretationelection prejudice
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This petition challenged a referendum conducted by the Registrar of Trade Unions to determine the Collective Bargaining Agent for the Karachi Municipal Corporation under Section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The petitioners alleged procedural irregularities, specifically regarding the timely supply of voter lists, the omission of certain particulars in those lists, and improper conduct during the polling process. The core legal questions concerned whether the procedural requirements of Section 22 were mandatory or directory, the proper interpretation of the worker exclusion clause in Section 22(8)(a), and whether minor irregularities vitiated the election result. The Court held that the provisions requiring specific particulars in the voter lists were directory rather than mandatory; thus, non-compliance did not invalidate the poll absent proof of prejudice. Furthermore, the Court clarified that workers with less than three months of service are excluded only if they are not union members. Finally, the Court established that minor polling irregularities, such as broken ballot boxes or time variations, do not vitiate an election unless they materially affected the outcome or caused demonstrable prejudice to the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Are the procedural requirements for voter lists under Section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure to include specific particulars in voter lists automatically vitiate a collective bargaining agent referendum?
  • Under Section 22(8)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which workers are excluded from the voter list?
  • Can minor polling irregularities vitiate an election result in the absence of demonstrated prejudice?
  Read full judgment →
• TAMIZUDDIN AHMED Alias TAMIZUDDIN vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 707 · Dhaka High Court · 1970-09-15Read full judgment →
• TAJ MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1971 PLD Peshawar 162 · Peshawar High Court · 1971-06-14Read full judgment →
• TAJ MUHAMMAD AND 4 Otherss vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 592 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-02Read full judgment →
• TAJ DIN vs MRS. RAZIA BEGUM ALVI AND 2 OTHERS1971 PLD Supreme Court 97 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-12-15
  evacuee propertyconfirmation of salecustodianprior approvalallotteenatural justiceres judicata
  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 West Pakistan High Court which quashed orders of the Custodian of Evacuee Property concerning agricultural land in Lahore. The core legal question involved the interpretation and application of sections 19 and 20 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, regarding the necessity of further confirmation for the sale of restored property after prior approval had been granted by the Custodian, and whether mere allottees had a right to notice in such confirmation proceedings. The Supreme Court held that once the Custodian granted prior approval for the sale under the relevant provisions and the transaction was duly completed and confirmed by the competent authority, no further confirmation under section 20 of the Act was required. The Court further held that mere allottees or licensees of evacuee property have no vested rights and are not necessary parties entitled to statutory notice in confirmation proceedings between the Custodian and the transferee. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether further confirmation under section 20 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 is required for a sale transaction where prior approval of the Custodian was already obtained under section 19?
  • Do mere allottees or licensees of evacuee property possess a vested right entitling them to notice in confirmation proceedings under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957?
  • Whether the Custodian of Evacuee Property has the lawful authority to reopen questions of ownership and confirmation after the validity of such transfers has been conclusively upheld by the High Court in writ proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• TAE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE vs NAZIR AHMAD1971 PLC 196 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 1970-06-12Read full judgment →
• T. V. SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS (PVT.) LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH1971 PTD 646 · Madras High Court · 1967-08-09Read full judgment →
• T. S BALIAH vs T. S. RANGACHARI, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE VI,1971 PTD 373 · Madras High Court · 1968-02-14Read full judgment →
• Syed ZULFIQAR ALI SHAH AND 16 OTHERS vs Ch. MUHAMMAD HASSAN, D. S. C., WEST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1971 PLD Lahore 108 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-29
  land settlementalienee rightscancellation of allotmentaudi alteram partemnatural justicevested rightsdisplaced persons
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns a settlement revision petition challenging the cancellation of land allotments originally confirmed in favour of certain allottees who subsequently sold the land to the petitioners. The core legal question is whether bona fide alienees of agricultural land, whose vendors' allotments were cancelled for alleged misrepresentation, are entitled to a hearing under the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions before an adverse order is passed. The Lahore High Court held that the alienees acquired a valid vested right upon purchase, as there was no legal bar against the transfer of confirmed agricultural land under the relevant scheme. The Court ruled that the alienees qualified as 'persons affected' under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and were entitled to notice and an opportunity of being heard (audi alteram partem). Consequently, the impugned orders cancelling the allotment without hearing the alienee-petitioners were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision after affording a hearing to both the vendors and the alienees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bona fide alienee of agricultural land whose vendor's allotment is cancelled is entitled to a pre-decisional hearing under the principles of natural justice?
  • Does an alienee of confirmed agricultural land acquire a vested right upon transfer under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
  • Who constitutes a 'person affected' entitled to a hearing under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
  • Whether the cancellation of an allottee's land allotment on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation automatically avoids the subsequent sale made to an alienee without notice to the latter?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed ZIAUL HASSAN ZAIDI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1971 P Cr. L J 1056 · Sindh High Court · 1971-12-21Read full judgment →
• Syed ZAHIRUL HASNAIN Mallick KHAN MOHAMMAD vs THE COMMISSIONER OF KARACHI AND ANOTHER THE COMMISSIONER OF KARACHI AND ANOTHER1971 SCMR 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-08-22
  probationary periodtermination of servicevested rightNaib-Tehsildarservice rulesconstitutional petitionconfirmation of service
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The petitioners, appointed as Naib-Tehsildars in the Lasbela district by the Commissioner of Karachi, challenged the termination of their services. Although the petitioners argued that their appointments were valid under the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib-Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962, and that they had completed their probation, the Supreme Court held that the petitions were bound to fail. The Court determined that under Explanation I to Rule 10 of the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib-Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962, the petitioners' probationary period was deemed extended because no confirmation orders were issued upon the completion of the initial two-year period. Consequently, as probationers, the petitioners had not acquired a vested right to a substantive appointment, rendering their termination unchallengeable under Article 98 of the late Constitution. The Court dismissed the petitions, noting that while the petitioners' arguments regarding the validity of their initial appointments had merit, they lacked the legal status of confirmed employees to enforce their retention.

  Questions settled

  • Does the completion of a probationary period automatically result in confirmation if no express order is passed?
  • Can a probationer enforce a right to appointment in a substantive capacity under Article 98 of the Constitution?
  • What is the effect of the failure to issue confirmation orders upon the expiry of an initial probationary period under the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib-Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed ZAHID HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs DHARMUMAL AND Other1971 SCMR 110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-08-21
  ReceiverEvacuee PropertyStatus QuoPossessionAlienationKhairpur StateAllotment
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns an application for the appointment of a Receiver over disputed land during the pendency of an appeal. The respondents sought this relief, alleging that the appellants were disposing of parcels of the land and had obtained a status quo order based on false pleas. The appellants had been in possession of the disputed land as allottees since 1949. The Court examined the history of the dispute, noting that the Custodian of Evacuee Property had previously rejected a revision petition regarding the land's status based on an erroneous view regarding the applicability of evacuee laws to the former Khairpur State. The Supreme Court held that, given the appellants' long-standing possession since 1949, it would not be just or proper to appoint a Receiver to disturb that possession. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for a Receiver but issued an injunction restraining the appellants from alienating or encumbering the disputed land until the final disposal of the appeal, while also directing them to expedite the appeal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is it appropriate to appoint a Receiver to disturb the possession of long-standing allottees of land during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Can the court restrain parties from alienating or encumbering disputed property during the pendency of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed SIBTE RAZA AND ANOTHER vs HABIB BANK LTD.1971 PLD Supreme Court 743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-06-22
  service agreementsecurity depositforfeiture of securityliquidated damagespenaltybreach of contractreasonable compensation
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter arose from two civil appeals filed by former bank employees against the dismissal of their suits for the refund of Rs. 2,000 each, which they had deposited as security under a five-year service agreement. Both employees resigned due to illness before completing two years of service, leading the respondent-bank to forfeit their security deposits as liquidated damages under the agreement. The core legal question was whether the bank could forfeit the security deposits under Section 74 of the Contract Act 1872 without proving actual loss or damage. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeals, holding that Section 74 of the Contract Act 1872 does not recognize the English law distinction between liquidated damages and penalties, and its scope includes the forfeiture of deposits. The Court ruled that upon a breach of contract, the aggrieved party is entitled to receive reasonable compensation up to the stipulated limit, regardless of whether actual loss is proved. Since the bank established that it incurred training expenses exceeding the deposit amount, the forfeiture of Rs. 2,000 was neither unconscionable nor excessive.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 74 of the Contract Act 1872 apply to the forfeiture of security deposits already paid by a contracting party?
  • Is an aggrieved party required to prove actual loss or damage to claim reasonable compensation under Section 74 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • How should a court determine the reasonableness of compensation under Section 74 of the Contract Act 1872 when a specific sum is stipulated in the contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed SHAKIR HUSSAIN AND 4 OTHERS vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND 5 OTHERS1971 PLD Lahore 578 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-22Read full judgment →
• Syed SADIQ HUSSAIN SHAH vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1971 SCMR 540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-06-24
  disciplinary proceedingsmisconductpatwarijamabandinatural justicebiaswrit jurisdiction
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The petitioner, a Patwari, was discharged from service for gross misconduct after being accused of supplying inconsistent copies of a jamabandi to different parties, which facilitated a land sale contravening Martial Law Regulation No. 62. His departmental appeal and revision were dismissed, and the Lahore High Court subsequently dismissed his writ petition in limine. In the petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that he was denied a reasonable opportunity of defense, that extraneous material was considered against him without notice, that the charges did not constitute misconduct, and that the inquiry was tainted by bias. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had been afforded sufficient opportunity, that findings of fact by the inquiring authorities regarding his status and record were unassailable in these proceedings, and that mere disagreement with factual findings does not amount to legal bias. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the disciplinary action and the High Court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a finding of fact regarding departmental misconduct reached by an inquiry officer can be re-agitated in constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • Does the consideration of a confidential report by an inquiring authority to determine an appropriate penalty vitiate disciplinary proceedings?
  • Can mere disagreement with factual findings or an adverse conclusion by an inquiry officer be equated with legal bias affecting quasi-judicial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed RIAZ ALI vs SHABBIR AHMAD KHAN1971 SCMR 598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-08-24
  evictiondefault in payment of rentlease agreementRent Restriction Ordinancecondonation of delayjudicial discretionEvidence Act
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a High Court judgment ordering the eviction of a tenant. The tenant had admittedly defaulted in paying monthly rent for ten months, contrary to a written lease agreement specifying monthly payment. The Rent Controller and District Judge had condoned the delay on the ground that the landlord periodically accepted lump-sum rent payments for several months. The core legal question was whether the acceptance of rent in lump sum varied the written lease terms or justified exercising judicial discretion under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance to condone a ten-month default. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's eviction order, holding that under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act 1872, oral evidence or past acceptance cannot vary a written lease agreement. Furthermore, accepting past rent merely condoned past defaults without altering future payment terms, and a ten-month default could not be judicially condoned.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant adduce evidence of past acceptance of rent in lump sum to vary the payment terms of a written lease agreement?
  • Does a landlord's acceptance of rent for several months together alter the written terms of a lease regarding monthly rent payment?
  • Can the Rent Controller validly exercise judicial discretion under Section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance to condone a rent default of ten months?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed RAZI SHAH vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 19 · Sindh High Court · 1970-06-27
  confiscation of propertydisposal of propertycriminal procedureinstrument of crimevehicle confiscationmurder trial
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal arises from an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Karachi, ordering the confiscation of a jeep involved in a criminal case while convicting the accused for murder and attempted murder. The appellant, who had previously sold the jeep under an agreement, re-acquired ownership through a civil court compromise decree and obtained interim custody via a magistrate under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon the conclusion of the trial, the Sessions Judge ordered the confiscation of the vehicle on the ground that it was used in the commission of the offence. The core legal question was whether a vehicle used merely to transport assailants to the scene of a crime and to facilitate their escape can be legally classified as property 'used for the commission of any offence' under section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the confiscation order, holding that the phrase refers strictly to instruments directly employed in committing the crime, such as weapons, rather than means of transport only remotely connected to the principal offence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a vehicle used merely to carry assailants to the scene of a crime and to facilitate their escape constitutes property used for the commission of an offence under section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a criminal court order the confiscation of property that is only remotely or indirectly connected to the actual commission of the offence?
  • What is the legal import and scope of the phrase 'used for the commission of any offence' under section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed RAFI AHMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI AND Other1971 SCMR 525 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-06-28
  restoration of petitionnon-prosecutionlimitation periodprofessional negligencecivil reviewbar council
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns an application for the restoration of a Civil Review Petition that was previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner's counsel and the petitioner's attorney provided conflicting accounts regarding the counsel's absence on the date the petition was dismissed. The counsel claimed he left the courtroom believing the bench was improperly constituted, while the attorney stated the counsel refused to appear. The Court observed that regardless of the conflict, the counsel displayed significant indifference by failing to ascertain the status of the case or seek the Court's indulgence. Furthermore, the Court noted that the restoration application was filed over two months after the dismissal, well beyond the period of limitation, without any satisfactory explanation for the delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for restoration primarily due to the inordinate delay in filing, while also referring the matter of the counsel's professional conduct to the Bar Council for necessary action.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between a counsel and an attorney regarding the reasons for non-appearance excuse a failure to prosecute a petition?
  • Can a restoration application be dismissed solely on the grounds of inordinate delay in filing after the period of limitation has expired?
  • What is the consequence of a counsel's indifference in attending to a case when it leads to dismissal for non-prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed OBAIDUL HAQUE vs MESSRS OMAR SONS LTD., DACCA,1971 PLC 311 · Labour Court · 1970-09-19Read full judgment →
• Syed MUSHARRAF ALI vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 1293 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-12Read full judgment →
• Syed MUQEEM SHAH vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHOREAND 12 OTHERS1971 PLC 223 [C.S.T.] · Civil Services Tribunal · 1971-05-17Read full judgment →