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.
- ABDUR RAHMAN vs MESSRS ORIENT MOTORS, DACCA1971 PLC 494 · Labour Court · 1970-10-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHMAN AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1971 PLD Dacca 79 · Dacca · 1970-03-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHMAN Alias KANER BAP AND Another vs NIRMALA SUNDARI DEBI1971 SCMR 2 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-15Read 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 special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of East Pakistan, which refused to interfere with a temporary injunction granted by a Munsif in a suit for permanent injunction. The respondents, having purchased the suit lands in a rent execution case and obtained possession through court in 1960, sought to restrain the petitioners from dispossessing them. The petitioners claimed possession as tenants and alleged a subsequent settlement from the Custodian of Enemy Property. The core legal question was whether the lower courts exercised their discretion soundly in granting the temporary injunction based on the respondents' prima facie possession. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts exercised their discretion on sound judicial principles. The Court observed that if the respondents had obtained valid possession through court, the property could not be treated as enemy property, and the petitioners' own application for settlement from the Custodian undermined their claim of existing tenancy. The petition was rejected, affirming that the matter required trial on evidence.
Questions settled- Can a court grant a temporary injunction where the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of possession through a court auction?
- Does an application by a party for settlement of land from the Custodian of Enemy Property contradict a claim of existing tenancy rights over the same land?
- Is a High Court's refusal to interfere in revision with a trial court's discretionary order of temporary injunction justified when the discretion was exercised on sound judicial principles?
- ABDUR RAHIM vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 463 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM vs THE MANAGING PARTNER, EASTERN RUBBER INDUSTRIES, DACCA1971 PLC 282 · Labour Court · 1970-08-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM vs Malik WAHID BAKHSH AND ANOTHER1971 P Cr. L J 241 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM vs M. T. ANSARI, MANAGER, PACKAGES LTD. LAHORE1971 PLC 202 · Labour Court · 1970-05-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM vs ABDUR RASHEED AND 3 Other1971 SCMR 641 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-10-04Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter arises from a dispute regarding the transfer of an evacuee property in Lyallpur. The core legal question concerns the finality of an order placing an evacuee property on the ear-marking list upon the petitioner's refusal to take it, and the maintainability of a time-barred appeal and subsequent constitutional petition against its subsequent transfer to another occupant. The Supreme Court held that the initial order placing the property on the ear-marking list upon the petitioner's refusal became final and extinguished the petitioner's entitlement, rendering any subsequent challenge futile, and that the delay in filing the appeal was rightly not condoned. The Court laid down the principle that failure to challenge an adverse settlement order within time extinguishes the party's locus standi, and that a belated challenge initiated only when ejectment is threatened is an afterthought that warrants no interference under constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does an unchallengeable order placing an evacuee property on the ear-marking list extinguish a claimant's entitlement?
- Whether a time-barred appeal against the transfer of property without sufficient ground for condoning delay is maintainable?
- Can a party who fails to challenge a settlement order in time maintain a constitutional petition against the subsequent transfer of the property?
- ABDUR RAHIM vs ABDUL MALAK AND OTHERS1971 PLD Azad J & K 1 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1970-12-23Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1971 PLD Peshawar 147 · Peshawar High Court · 1971-06-15Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS1971 PLD Supreme Court 130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1968-02-27Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.These twelve certificated appeals challenge the assessment of annual value of various hotels in Karachi for levying property taxes under the City of Karachi Municipal Act, 1933. The core legal question concerned the appropriate method for assessing the annual rental value of hotel premises and whether rent ceilings fixed under the Karachi Rent Restriction Act, 1953, impact such assessments. The Supreme Court held that the municipal authorities erred in adopting a 'Trade Earnings' formula based on a percentage of imaginary room charges without statutory backing or allowance for profit and capital outlay. The Court ruled that 'annual value' under section 97(2) of the 1933 Act represents the rent bare premises would reasonably command from year to year, excluding furniture, machinery, and trade profits, and that rent ceilings under rent restriction laws constitute a relevant consideration. The appeals, with one exception settled by compromise, were allowed and the assessments set aside for fresh determination.
Questions settled- What is the appropriate method for assessing the annual value of a building used as a hotel for levying property taxes under the City of Karachi Municipal Act, 1933?
- Whether the ceilings on rent fixed in the Karachi Rent Restriction Act, 1953, have any impact on the assessment of annual value under the City of Karachi Municipal Act, 1933?
- Can the annual rental value of a hotel premises be determined based on the trade earnings or business profits of the occupier under section 97(2) of the City of Karachi Municipal Act, 1933?
- Does the failure to exhaust alternative statutory remedies bar a petitioner from invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court when coercive recovery steps are threatened?
- ABDUL WAHID vs YOUSIF1971 PLD Karachi 772 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID vs THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND Another1971 SCMR 719 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-10-29Read 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 High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition against the appointment of a permanent Lambardar. The petitioner, a former temporary Lambardar whose Dhal Bachh was removed due to absence and misbehaviour, challenged the appointment of the respondent as permanent Lambardar made by the Collector in January 1965, after a delay of approximately four years. The core legal questions relate to the laches and limitation in challenging administrative appointments and the maintainability of writ petitions regarding the appointment of a Lambardar. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities based on delay and limitation, and further reaffirmed that the appointment of a Lambardar is essentially an administrative measure to which no right can be claimed that is competently agitable in the writ jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the appointment of a Lambardar is an administrative measure that can be agitated in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does a belated challenge to the appointment of a permanent Lambardar suffer from laches and limitation?
- ABDUL WAHID vs Agha MUHAMMAD YAQUB KHAN1971 SCMR 503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-07-01Read 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 dispute concerning a partnership business that was allegedly referred to arbitration. An award was rendered, and when filed in court to be made a rule of the court, the appellant filed written objections challenging it. On the date fixed for evidence, the trial court refused an adjournment requested by the appellant due to his son's illness, and proceeded to make the award the rule of the court without examining the appellant or considering his sworn affidavit containing objections. The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal in limine. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the trial court acted properly in making the award the rule of the court without examining the appellant who was present. The Supreme Court held that under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, affidavits form primary evidence when challenging an award, and the trial court erred in making the award the rule of the court as a matter of course without adverting to and deciding the appellant's objections. The appeal was accepted and the case remanded.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court can make an arbitration award the rule of the court without deciding the objections raised against it?
- Do affidavits serve as primary evidence under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act when the validity of an arbitration agreement or award is challenged?
- Is it proper for a court to refuse to examine an objector present in court who has filed a sworn affidavit in support of his objections to an arbitration award?
- ABDUL WAHAB vs JAMAL AND 6 Other1971 SCMR 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-08-24Read 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 challenged a High Court judgment that acquitted six respondents of charges under Section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reversing their convictions for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in its reappraisal of evidence, specifically regarding the credibility of eye-witnesses, the reliability of a dying declaration, and the impact of a significant delay in lodging the First Information Report. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding the prosecution's case riddled with inconsistencies. The Court observed that the medical evidence contradicted the dying declaration, the eye-witness testimony was doubtful, and the unexplained delay in reporting the crime suggested fabrication. Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution suppressed the presence of a weapon found near the deceased, which supported the respondent's plea of self-defence. The principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is inherently improbable, contradictory to medical findings, and tainted by unexplained delays, an acquittal by the High Court is well-founded and warrants no interference by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained when the medical evidence contradicts the dying declaration regarding the number of assailants and injuries?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report undermine the credibility of the prosecution case?
- Is an acquittal justified when the prosecution suppresses material evidence, such as a weapon found at the crime scene?
- ABDUL SIDDIQUE MD. AZHAR ALI MIAN AND Another vs THE STATE THE STATE1971 SCMR 628 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-10-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SAYEED AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL SALAM FAROOQUI1971 PLD Karachi 217 · Sindh High Court · 1970-01-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR FAZAL DIN vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 228 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR AND Another vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 1187 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM vs SHARIF AHMED AND ANOTHER1971 PLD Karachi 687 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SALAM vs SHARIF AHMAD AND Another1971 SCMR 596 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-08-25Read 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 dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his application to be impleaded as a party in ejectment proceedings. The respondent had initiated ejectment proceedings against another party under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The petitioner sought to join these proceedings, but the Rent Controller rejected his application, a decision upheld by the High Court on the basis that no appeal lay against such an order. The core legal question was whether an appeal to the High Court was maintainable under section 15(4) of the Ordinance, given the petitioner's argument regarding the non-specification of classes of cases by the Government. The Supreme Court held that the amendment to section 15(1) rendered the petitioner's argument regarding the non-specification of cases redundant. The Court affirmed that appeals to the High Court are restricted to instances where no appellate authority has been appointed for an area, and dismissed the petition, while clarifying that the executing court must determine the petitioner's rights before executing any eviction decree against him.
Questions settled- Does an appeal lie to the High Court against an order of the Rent Controller under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 where an appellate authority has been appointed?
- Does the amendment to section 15(1) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 render the provision in section 15(4) regarding the non-specification of classes of cases redundant?
- Can an executing court execute an eviction decree against a third party claiming independent possession without first determining their rights in the property?
- ABDUL SALAM alias ABUL KHAIR AND ANOTHER vs ALAH MIAH SERANG AND ANOTHER1971 PLD Supreme Court 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-23Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This civil appeal by special leave was filed against the judgment and decree of a Single Judge of the High Court of East Pakistan in a second appeal arising out of a suit for setting aside an ex parte decree on the ground of fraudulent suppression of summonses. The trial Court had dismissed the suit, but the first appellate Court reversed that decision and decreed the suit. On second appeal, the High Court set aside the first appellate Court's decree and restored the trial Court's decision on the ground that the lower appellate Court omitted to consider certain evidence, without the High Court itself evaluating that evidence or arriving at its own finding of fact. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in disposing of the second appeal without exercising its powers under Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to determine the omitted issues of fact based on the evidence. The Supreme Court held that where the first appellate Court omits to consider material evidence, the High Court must comply with Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by examining the evidence itself or remanding the matter. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the first appellate Court for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- What is the duty of the High Court under Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the first appellate Court omits to consider material evidence on record?
- Can the High Court in second appeal restore the trial court's decree based on omitted evidence without evaluating that evidence itself under Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether a case should be remanded to the first appellate Court for fresh decision when that court fails to consider key items of evidence on record?
- ABDUL RAZZAQUE vs MESSRS PAK METAL INDUSTRIES, DACCA1971 PLC 490 · Labour Court · 1970-10-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs THE STATE1971 PLD Baghdad-ul-Jadid 65 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1971-10-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAUF vs THE CROWN1971 SCMR 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1954-03-08Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal by special leave was preferred by the appellant, Abdul Rauf, against the decision of the Judicial Commissioner of the N.-W.F.P. which confirmed his death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested on the testimony of six alleged eye-witnesses, the appellant's absconding, and a motive involving a rejected marriage proposal. The High Court had discarded four of the eye-witnesses as unreliable due to their omission from the First Information Report. The Supreme Court analyzed the remaining two witnesses, Malik Zargul Khan and Shahzad Gul, and found that neither had actually witnessed the shooting; instead, both relied on hearsay from unidentified bystanders who were never produced as witnesses. The Court held that the conviction could not stand on hearsay evidence and that the appellant's absconding did not suffice to prove guilt in the absence of credible direct evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on the basis of hearsay statements from unidentified bystanders who were not produced at trial?
- Does the absconding of an accused person, by itself, suffice to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt when the ocular evidence is discarded or found to be unreliable?
- What is the evidentiary value of a witness's statement transferred under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the witness contradicts their own testimony regarding the identity of the accused?
- ABDUL RAUF CHAUDHRY vs Rana ALLAH DAD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ITTEHAD1971 PLC 388 · Labour Court · 1971-01-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs The STATE1971 SCMR 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1958-11-07Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, a Rehabilitation Inspector, under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The core legal question revolves around whether the inferences drawn from the established facts by the courts below—specifically regarding the appellant's receipt of tainted currency notes and his subsequent conduct—legitimately proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to conclusively establish that the money was received as an illegal gratification, noting that the appellant openly held the notes without concealment and immediately moved towards his superior officer's room to report the bribe-giver. The Court established the key principle that where an accused person's conduct is equally consistent with a bona fide intention to report a bribe-giver as it is with the acceptance of a bribe, the inference of guilt cannot be sustained, and the benefit of the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.
Questions settled- Whether an inference of guilt can be sustained under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 when the accused's conduct immediately following the receipt of money is equally consistent with a bona fide intention to report the bribe-giver?
- Does the failure of an accused to produce defense witnesses before the police during investigation automatically render the defense version an afterthought?
- Whether the uncorroborated conduct of a public servant openly carrying currency notes towards a superior officer's room constitutes sufficient proof of accepting a bribe?
- ABDUL RASHID vs NAZIR HUSSAIN AND 5 Other1971 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-01-13Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This criminal appeal by special leave challenged the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan which set aside the convictions and sentences of the respondents for murder and assault, resulting in their acquittal. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondents given the mutual injuries sustained by both parties and the plea of self-defence. The Supreme Court held that the complainant party was the aggressor and that the respondents, having sustained injuries including a wound on a vital part of the head of one of the respondents, acted within their right of private defence. The court laid down the principle that where prosecution witnesses suppress injuries sustained by the accused and the evidence indicates the complainant party was the aggressor, the accused are entitled to the right of private defence under Section 100 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, justifying the acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused by prosecution witnesses warrants an inference that the complainant party was the aggressor?
- Does an injury on a vital part of the body of an accused give rise to a reasonable apprehension causing the right of private defence to extend to the causing of death under Section 100 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is interference called for with an order of acquittal by the High Court when the evidence demonstrates that injuries were sustained on both sides in a sudden fight?
- ABDUL RASHID AND 6 Others vs ABDUL HAMID AND 2 OTHERS1971 P Cr. L J 1025 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID Alias SHEEDA vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 635 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYUM vs WEST PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,1971 PLC 429 · Labour Court · 1971-01-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID vs ALI NAWAZ1971 SCMR 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-29Read 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 arose from a criminal case where the petitioner was initially convicted under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to a fine of thirty rupees by a Magistrate. On a reference by the Sessions Judge, who highlighted the severity of the injuries caused, the High Court issued a rule for enhancement of sentence and subsequently enhanced the petitioner's sentence to three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged this enhancement, arguing that the High Court had imposed a sentence appropriate for a conviction under Section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since three years' rigorous imprisonment is the maximum legal sentence prescribed under Section 324, and is far below the maximum penalty of transportation for life under Section 326, the sentence was legal and appropriate. The Court laid down the principle that it will not interfere with a legal sentence where no question of principle is involved.
Questions settled- Whether a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is legal and within the statutory limits?
- Will the Supreme Court of Pakistan interfere with a legal sentence imposed by a High Court in the absence of any question of principle?
- Can a High Court enhance a sentence to the maximum statutory limit prescribed for that offence if the facts and circumstances of the case warrant it?
- ABDUL MUTALIB KAZI vs MANACANG DIRECTOR, BALAKA BISCUIT COMPANY, DACCA1971 PLC 454 · Labour Court · 1976-11-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MANNA N vs SIRAJ KHAN, PROPRIETOR, "STUDENT TAILOR" DACCA1971PLC74 · Labour Court · 1970-07-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MANNA N vs MESSRS W. RAHMAN JUTE MILLS LTD., COMILLA1971 PLC 123 · Labour Court · 1970-06-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MANAN vs Haji KARAM ELLAHI AND ANOTHER1971 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-07-22Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal concerns an ejectment order issued against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal question was whether the amendments introduced by the West Pakistan Ordinance XXI of 1965 to Section 13(2)(vi) of the Ordinance, which imposed stricter requirements on landlords seeking possession for reconstruction, applied retrospectively to pending applications. The Court held that the amendments were prospective, not retrospective. It reasoned that the amendments conferred new substantive rights upon tenants and imposed additional restrictions on landlords, rather than merely altering procedural mechanisms. Consequently, the rights of the parties were governed by the law as it stood when the ejectment application was filed. The Court affirmed the fundamental legal principle that statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless clear legislative intent or necessary implication dictates otherwise, particularly when substantive rights are affected. As the landlord had satisfied the requirements of the law applicable at the time of filing, the ejectment order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Are the amendments to Section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, introduced by West Pakistan Ordinance XXI of 1965, retrospective in operation?
- Does a change in the requirements for a landlord to obtain possession for reconstruction constitute a change in substantive law or procedural law?
- Is a landlord's right to eject a tenant for reconstruction governed by the law in force at the time of filing the application or the law in force at the time of the decision?
- ABDUL MAJID AND 6 Others ABDUL MAJID vs THE STATE THE STATE1971 SCMR 31 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-29Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of East Pakistan, which maintained the convictions of seven petitioners under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, but modified the death sentences to transportation for life, except for the first petitioner, Abdul Majid, whose death sentence was confirmed. The core legal question involves the appreciation of evidence, the weight to be given to omissions in the first information report, seizure lists, and police statements, and the validity of differentiating sentences among co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the guilt of six petitioners involved mere appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference, thereby dismissing their petitions. However, the Court granted leave to appeal to Abdul Majid specifically to examine whether there was valid justification for differentiating his sentence regarding the use of the weapon.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence concurrently evaluated by lower courts in the absence of a substantial departure from principles relating to the appreciation of evidence?
- Can the non-mention of the recovery of a weapon in the first information report be utilized to contradict the direct testimony of witnesses other than the maker of the report?
- Is an omission in a seizure list that was never put to the investigating officer in cross-examination a valid ground to challenge the recovery at the appellate stage?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal solely to examine whether there was valid justification for differentiating the sentence of a specific co-accused?
- ABDUL LATIF vs The STATE1971 SCMR 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-01-19Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This criminal appeal, by special leave, arises from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan upholding the appellant's conviction under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 13(d) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, while reducing the sentence under the former. The core legal questions concern whether the High Court misread the evidence regarding the identification of the accused, whether the complainant party had the lawful authority under section 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to pursue and arrest the accused in the absence of a cognizable and non-bailable offense committed in their view, and whether the right of private defence accrued upon an illegal arrest. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, holding that the High Court patently misread the evidence regarding witness identification, that the private citizens had no legal authority under section 59 to arrest the accused, and that the illegal arrest triggered the right of private defence. Furthermore, the Court held that the conviction under the Arms Ordinance was unsustainable due to a complete lack of weapon recovery.
Questions settled- Does a misreading of prosecution evidence regarding the identity of an accused warrant the setting aside of a conviction?
- Do private persons possess the legal right under section 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to pursue and arrest individuals who have not committed a cognizable and non-bailable offense in their view?
- Does an illegal attempt to arrest by private individuals give rise to a right of private defence for the accused?
- Can a conviction under section 13(d) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 be sustained when no weapon was recovered from the possession of the accused?
- ABDUL LATIF vs GUL AHMED JUTE MILLS LTD., CHITTAGONG1971 PLC 546 · Labour Court · 1970-09-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM vs UNIVERSAL IRON SAFE INDUSTRIES, DACCA1971 PLC 312 · Labour Court · 1970-09-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KADIR AND OTHERS vs ABDUL MUTALIK alias SERU AND OTHERS1971 PLD Dacca 118 · Dacca · 1969-07-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JAMIL vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1971 PLC 507 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-30Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition challenged the registration of the National Bank of Pakistan Supervisory Staff Union as an employers' trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The petitioner argued that employers cannot form trade unions, that compliance with registration requirements regarding executive committee composition was impossible for employers, and that no collective bargaining agent existed for employers. The Court held that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, explicitly contemplates the formation of trade unions by employers, distinct from those of workmen. It clarified that while certain registration requirements, such as the composition of the executive committee, are tailored to workmen's unions, they do not bar the registration of employers' unions. The Court further held that the Ordinance provides a comprehensive mechanism for settling industrial disputes and challenging registrations, and that the petitioner had failed to exhaust these statutory remedies. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, emphasizing that where a statute provides an adequate, specific remedy for a grievance, that remedy must be pursued.
Questions settled- Can employers form a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does the inability of an employers' trade union to comply with the executive committee composition requirements of Section 7(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, bar its registration?
- Is the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962 available when the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, provides an adequate alternative remedy for challenging a trade union's registration?
- Does the definition of 'industrial dispute' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, include disputes between employers?
- ABDUL JABBAR vs MESSRS TABANI BEVERAGE Co. LTD., DACCA1971 PLC 460 · Labour Court · 1970-11-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAQUE vs SEKANDER HAYAT KHAN1971 PLC 545 · Labour Court · 1970-08-31Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HANNA N vs CONSULTING ENGINEERS (PAK.) LTD., DACCA AND1971 PLC 284 · Labour Court · 1970-08-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs The STATE1971 SCMR 781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-11-25Read 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 directed against the Lahore High Court's order dismissing an application for the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in multiple cases. The petitioner faced several cases under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before a Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. Initially discharged under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to a lack of sanction, proceedings were later revived after the sanction was produced, leading to conviction in one case and subsequent appeals being dismissed. When the remaining cases resumed years later, the petitioner sought quashment on the ground of long delay. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that delay per se, without fault by the accused, is insufficient for quashing proceedings. The core legal question concerned whether proceedings should be quashed solely due to prolonged delay when the record was unavailable. The Supreme Court held that the delay was adequately explained by the unavailability of the record for several years, justifying the refusal to quash the proceedings. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does delay per se, without fault on the part of the accused person, constitute sufficient ground for quashing criminal proceedings?
- Is the unavailability of the judicial record for several years considered a valid explanation for trial delay?
- ABDUL HAMID vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC1971 PLC 126 [C.S.T.] · Civil Services Tribunal · 1970-09-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs S. E.PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING CIRCLE, BAHAWALPUR AND ANOTHER1971 PLC 1 [C.S.T.] · Civil Services Tribunal · 1970-09-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SCHOOLS), DIRECTORATE1971 PLC 178 [C.S.T.] · Civil Services Tribunal · 1971-06-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID KHAN vs THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND 2 Other1971 SCMR 711 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1966-06-17Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition sought a review of a portion of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 15 April 1966, which held that the transfer of an 'excess area' in an evacuee house compound was within the discretion of the Settlement Authorities and that the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge it after his own transfer claim was rejected. The petitioner contended that under instructions from the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the excess area should have been sold by public auction, which he wished to bid on. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a mere desire to bid at an auction does not confer a vested right to force a property to auction. The Court reaffirmed that a petitioner whose claim for transfer of the property has been finally rejected lacks locus standi to assert any rights regarding its subsequent disposal. However, the Court noted that if any binding administrative instructions were violated, the petitioner could approach the Chief Settlement Commissioner in a competent forum.
Questions settled- Does a mere desire to bid for a property at a public auction confer a vested right to compel the authorities to bring that property to auction?
- Does a petitioner whose claim for the transfer of evacuee property has been finally rejected retain locus standi to challenge the disposal of the excess area of that property?
- Can a party raise new administrative instructions for the first time in a review petition before the Supreme Court if they were not mentioned during the main appeal?
- ABDUL HAMID KHAN vs PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND 4 Other1971 SCMR 645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-03Read 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 arose from a civil suit filed by the Government against a Treasury Contractor, Abdul Hamid Khan, to recover funds defalcated by his employee from the Kohat Treasury. The petitioner contested liability, arguing he had not entered into the alleged contract of guarantee, that his liability was limited to Rs. 30,000, and that the Treasury Officer’s failure to adhere to safety rules absolved him of responsibility. Additionally, he argued that the defalcation did not occur within the scope of employment under Section 238 of the Contract Act. The trial court permitted secondary evidence to establish the contract's terms and decreed the suit, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, noting that the matter was concluded by concurrent findings of fact. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the alleged negligence or connivance of the Treasury Officer in facilitating the defalcation diminished the contractor's liability to indemnify the Government under the contract of guarantee. The petition was dismissed as no valid legal grounds for interference were established.
Questions settled- Can secondary evidence be admitted to prove the terms of a contract of guarantee when the original document is missing from the record?
- Does the negligence or connivance of a Treasury Officer in facilitating defalcation diminish the liability of a Treasury Contractor to indemnify the Government under a contract of guarantee?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the exercise of its special jurisdiction?
- ABDUL HAMID alias HAMIDA vs THE STATE1971 PLD Lahore 947 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 307 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKIM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, INDUSTRIES1971 PLC 63 · Civil Services Tribunal · 1970-12-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKIM AND OTHERS vs FATEH MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1971 PLD Quetta 138 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-10-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKIM AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1971 PLD Karachi 239 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-02Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The appellants were convicted for the murder of the deceased following a dispute over stolen footwear. The trial court relied on ocular testimony and dying declarations. On appeal, the High Court scrutinized the evidence, rejecting one dying declaration as suspicious while upholding another recorded by a Magistrate. The court affirmed the convictions of the two appellants who actively used knives, finding the ocular evidence credible despite defense allegations of enmity and bad character. However, the court distinguished the case of the third appellant, Alidino, who was unarmed and not involved in the original quarrel. The court held that in the absence of evidence showing pre-concert or knowledge that the others were armed, the third appellant could not be held liable under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal of the two primary assailants but allowed the appeal of the third, acquitting him of the charge due to the lack of established common intention.
Questions settled- Can common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be attributed to an unarmed participant who was not involved in the original motive of the crime?
- Does the presence of a witness at the scene of a crime, without sustaining injuries, necessarily render their testimony unreliable?
- Is a dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate reliable if the deceased was certified to be in a fit mental state by a medical officer?
- ABDUL HAFEEZ KHAN vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, P. W. R.,1971 PLC 146 [C.S.T.] · Civil Services Tribunal · 1971-04-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1971 PLD Lahore 59 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 2 Other1971 SCMR 98 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-10-21Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, which declared his Letters Patent Appeal to have abated following the death of a joint transferee respondent during the pendency of the appeal. The core legal question was whether private respondents in a writ petition who would be adversely affected by the setting aside of an impugned order are necessary parties, such that the death of one without timely substitution causes the appeal to abate. The Supreme Court held that persons to be adversely affected by the quashing of an order under Article 98 of the Constitution are necessary parties, as no effective order can be made in their absence without violating principles of natural justice. The Court laid down the principle that beneficiaries of an impugned administrative or settlement order are indispensable parties in constitutional writ proceedings, and failure to bring their legal representatives on record within the prescribed limitation period under the Code of Civil Procedure results in the abatement of the proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether private respondents who are beneficiaries of an impugned order are necessary parties in a constitutional writ petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962?
- Does the death of a joint transferee respondent without timely substitution of legal representatives result in the abatement of a Letters Patent Appeal arising from writ proceedings?
- Can a court make an effective order under Article 98 of the Constitution in the absence of persons who would be adversely affected by the quashing of the impugned order?
- ABDUL GHANI vs Hafiz ABDUL KHALIQ RAHMANI AND Another1971 SCMR 106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-08-17Read 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 against the quashment of criminal proceedings. The petitioner had previously filed a civil suit for the recovery of a monetary loan, which was dismissed, and the dismissal was upheld in revision by the High Court. Four years later, the petitioner filed a private criminal complaint under section 420 of the Penal Code against the respondent. The Magistrate initially dismissed it, but upon revision, proceedings were remanded and process was issued. The High Court subsequently quashed the criminal proceedings under section 561-A read with section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The core legal question was whether the criminal complaint constituted an abuse of the process of the Court given the prior civil proceedings and the delay. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the criminal complaint was not bona fide, the dispute was essentially of a civil nature, and the High Court rightly quashed the proceedings as an abuse of the process of the court. The key principle laid down is that utilizing criminal proceedings as a belated device following an unsuccessful civil suit regarding the same transaction amounts to an abuse of the process of the court.
Questions settled- Does the filing of a criminal complaint four years after the dismissal of a related civil suit amount to an abuse of the process of the court?
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings arising from a dispute of a civil nature?
- Can a party initiate criminal proceedings under section 420 of the Penal Code after unsuccessfully pursuing a civil remedy for the recovery of money?
- ABDUL GHANI AND 8 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 4 OTHERS1971 PLD Lahore 53 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs The STATE1971 SCMR 155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-01-22Read 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 of the Lahore High Court refusing bail to the petitioner, who had been convicted under Section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to six years of rigorous imprisonment by a Section 30 Magistrate. The core legal question was whether the High Court improperly exercised its discretion in denying bail to a convicted person pending appeal, particularly given the length of the sentence and the anticipated delay in the appeal hearing. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion in granting or refusing bail to a convict is not to be interfered with unless it is exercised on principles unsupported by law. The Court emphasized that a convict does not have an inherent right to bail, and at the appellate stage, the court is not required to re-examine the prima facie case for conviction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the High Court's refusal to grant bail was deemed a proper exercise of judicial discretion.
Questions settled- Does a convicted person have an inherent right to be released on bail pending the hearing of their appeal?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in refusing bail to a convict?
- Is the High Court required to consider the merits of a conviction when deciding on a bail application pending appeal?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 3 Other1971 SCMR 602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-08-19Read 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 out of a dispute over the transfer of Flat No. 1/1 in Karachi, which was previously subjected to multiple rounds of litigation between the petitioner and the respondent up to the Supreme Court. After failing in the initial litigation, the petitioner initiated a fresh round of litigation before the Settlement authorities claiming the flat on the ground that the respondent had never applied for its transfer. The Settlement authorities rejected the claim, and both a writ petition and a subsequent Letters Patent appeal in the High Court were dismissed. The core legal question is whether a litigant can be permitted to agitate new grounds in successive litigation regarding the same cause of action that could and should have been raised earlier. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly declined to entertain the fresh writ petition based on the principle that a litigant cannot split up grounds to seek relief at different times. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a litigant be allowed to split up grounds to seek relief in respect of the same cause of action through different petitions at different times?
- Whether a fresh writ petition can be entertained when the petitioner failed to agitate the available grounds in previous litigation relating to the same matter?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs ABDUL KARIM AND 2 OTHERS1971 PLD Lahore 616 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GANI HAJI HABIB AND OTHERS vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL III1971 PTD 460 · Calcutta High Court · 1968-04-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs THE STATE1971 PLD Lahore 732 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs ABDUL RAZAQ AND OTHERS1971 PLD Azad J & K 20 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ CHOHAN vs DIVISIONAL EVACUEE TRUST COMMITTEE, KARACHI1971 PLD Karachi 662 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL ALIM Alias ABDUL Alias ABDUL AWAL AND 22 Others vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 1230 · Dhaka High Court · 1970-05-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL ALI vs ADAM IBRAHIM1971 SCMR 588 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-08-26Read 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 eviction order issued by the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan. The petitioner, an occupant of an evacuee plot, challenged an eviction order granted in favour of the respondent, who had acquired the property via a Provisional Transfer Order from the Settlement Department. The respondent sought eviction based on the petitioner's failure to pay rent following a notice served under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but the Additional District Judge accepted the respondent's appeal, ordering eviction. The High Court upheld this decision, finding that the statutory notice was served and rent remained unpaid. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued the property was a building site, necessitating a suit for possession rather than eviction proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that as this argument was not raised in the lower courts, it could not be introduced for the first time. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact regarding the service of notice and non-payment of rent.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new legal argument regarding the nature of the property for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Is a tenant liable for eviction under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 if they fail to pay rent after receiving a notice under Section 30?
- ABBAS vs The STATE1971 SCMR 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-03-01Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns the conviction of the appellant, Abbas, for the murder of two individuals, Kamal and Abdur Rahman. The appellant and his co-accused were initially convicted by the trial court, and their convictions were largely upheld by the High Court, which relied on ocular testimony from two female witnesses, the oral dying declaration of one deceased, and ballistic evidence linking recovered firearms to the crime scene. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the appellant's guilt, specifically regarding the corroboration of the ocular evidence through the recovery of the weapon allegedly used by him. The Supreme Court examined the admissibility of evidence regarding the borrowing of the firearm and the reliability of the ballistic reports. The Court held that the prosecution had satisfactorily established the appellant's guilt, finding the ocular testimony credible and sufficiently corroborated by the recovery of the weapon and the dying declaration. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the principle that consistent ocular testimony corroborated by independent forensic evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in murder cases.
Questions settled- Is the testimony of interested witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction if corroborated by independent forensic evidence?
- Can the prosecution abandon a witness who is deemed to have been won over by the accused?
- Does the recovery of a firearm and matching ballistic evidence provide sufficient corroboration for ocular testimony in a murder case?
- A. Z. SIRAJ vs THE, CHIEF ENGINEER, IVAN MILUTIONOVIC-PIM, CHITTAGONG1971 PLC 122 · Labour Court · 1970-07-06Read full judgment →
- A. T. M. TOBARAKULLAH BHUIYAN vs The STATE1971 SCMR 4 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-30Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioner, a Superintendent of a State Orphanage, challenged his conviction for criminal misappropriation and the use of a forged document. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, entrusted with funds to purchase blankets for orphans, misappropriated a significant sum by submitting a fabricated cash memo that inflated the number of blankets purchased from the Dacca Central Jail. The petitioner contended that the number of blankets claimed was consistent with the orphanage's stock and that the salesman, a co-accused, was solely responsible for the forgery. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the evidence supported the conviction, specifically focusing on the discrepancy between the petitioner's submitted bill and the jail's actual sales records. The Court held that the documentary evidence, particularly the jail register showing insufficient stock to support the petitioner's claim, conclusively established the petitioner's guilt. The Court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the petitioner's reliance on the forged cash memo to justify his expenditure bill demonstrated his complicity in the misappropriation. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the submission of a forged cash memo to justify an expenditure bill constitute sufficient evidence of criminal misappropriation?
- Can a conviction for misappropriation be sustained based primarily on documentary evidence contradicting the accused's claims?
- Is an accused liable for misappropriation when the quantity of goods claimed to have been purchased exceeds the actual stock available at the source of purchase?
- A. T. M. ABDUL HALIM vs THE EASTERN MERCANTILE BANK LTD., CHITTAGONG1971 PLC 347 · Labour Court · 1970-09-25Read full judgment →
- A. SHARIF MIA vs PROPRIETOR, RATAN ART PRESS, DACCA1971 PLC 318 · Labour Court · 1970-09-25Read full judgment →
- A. S. N. M. IDRIS AMBALAM vs M. ABDUL HAKIM1971 PTD 99 · Madras High Court · 1967-08-03Read full judgment →
- A. S. M. FARUQ vs THE STATE--Opposite1971 PLD Dacca 56 · Dacca · 1970-01-30Read full judgment →
- A. M. MAHIUL HUQ vs MD. SHAMSUL ALAM AND Another1971 SCMR 59 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-17Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter concerns a dispute over the appointment and cancellation of a Nikah Registrar in the Chittagong district. The petitioner, an existing Nikah Registrar, challenged the appointment of the first respondent as a second Nikah Registrar for the same Union Councils. The petitioner successfully appealed to the Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of East Pakistan, who cancelled the respondent's appointment. The respondent challenged this cancellation in the High Court, which ruled that the Secretary lacked the legal authority to cancel the appointment, as the power to revoke or cancel such a license rested solely with the Union Council under the relevant rules. The High Court further interpreted the law to allow for multiple Nikah Registrars within a Union Council, provided their jurisdictions were distinct. Upon the petitioner's appeal for special leave, the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision. The Court held that because the cancellation order was issued by an incompetent authority, it was legally unsustainable, thereby rendering the challenge to the underlying statutory interpretation moot in the present proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the Provincial Government have the authority to cancel the appointment of a Nikah Registrar under the East Pakistan Muslim Family Laws Rules, 1961?
- Can more than one Nikah Registrar be appointed for the same Union Council?
- Is an order passed by an incompetent authority sustainable in law?
- A. M. HASHMI, Messrs DEMOS SHOE FACTORY, CHITTAGONG vs Hajee WAQAR1971 PLC 278 · Labour Court · 1970-08-21Read full judgment →
- A. K. M. SHAMSUZZAMAN KHAN vs CHAIRMAN, EAST PAKISTAN ROAD1971 PLD Dacca 211 · Dacca · 1970-03-24Read full judgment →
- A. K. M. SHAMSUL HUDA vs MESSRS BROTHERS JUTE Co., DACCA1971 PLC 308 · Labour Court · 1970-08-29Read full judgment →
- A. HAMID vs HUSSAIN HYDER, CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1971 PLD Lahore 858 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-28Read full judgment →
- A. GEORGE vs PAKISTANI INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION1971 PLD Lahore 748 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-03Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter concerns a second appeal against the dismissal of a suit filed by an employee of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) challenging his termination. The core legal question was whether the PIAC Service Code provided statutory protection to employees, thereby allowing a suit for a declaration that the dismissal was void and for specific performance of the employment contract. The Court held that the PIAC is a statutory corporation distinct from the State, and its employees are not civil servants entitled to constitutional protections. The Court further determined that the PIAC Service Code, not being framed under statutory regulation-making powers or published in the official Gazette, lacked statutory force and constituted merely internal directory instructions. Consequently, the relationship between the Corporation and its employees is governed by the general law of master and servant. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of statutory provisions protecting service, a contract for personal service cannot be specifically enforced, and an employer may terminate employment subject only to a claim for damages for wrongful dismissal.
Questions settled- Is an employee of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation a civil servant entitled to constitutional protections?
- Does the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Service Code have the force of statutory law?
- Can a contract of personal service be specifically enforced against a statutory corporation in the absence of statutory protection?
- Is a suit for a declaration of continued employment competent where the relationship is governed by the general law of master and servant?
- A. D. NASIR vs GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN, THROUGH1971 PLC 16 [C.S.T.] · Civil Services Tribunal · 1970-12-30Read full judgment →
- _CIVIL~11970 PLC 408 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-04-29Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter arose from six civil appeals and a writ petition concerning an industrial dispute between the Pakistan Western Railway and its ticket examiners regarding their status as 'running staff'. The Industrial Court had issued an award in 1962 in favor of the ticket examiners, which was subsequently extended. The Province of West Pakistan challenged the extensions and the validity of the award's continued operation. The High Court dismissed the Province's appeals as incompetent and accepted the ticket examiners' writ petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that an extension of an award does not constitute a fresh 'industrial dispute' or 'award' under the Industrial Disputes Ordinance 1959, and therefore no right of appeal lies against such an extension. Furthermore, the Court ruled that under Section 14(5) of the Ordinance, an award continues to be binding on the parties even after the expiry of its maximum statutory period of operation, until the expiry of two months from the date a valid written notice of intention to terminate is served by one party on the other.
Questions settled- Whether the extension of the period of an industrial award constitutes a fresh 'industrial dispute' or 'award' giving rise to a right of appeal under the Industrial Disputes Ordinance 1959?
- Does an industrial award continue to bind the parties after the expiry of its maximum statutory period of operation if no valid notice of termination has been served?
- Can an interim order of the Industrial Court declaring a termination notice premature be appealed as an award under the Industrial Disputes Ordinance 1959?
- ZULFIQAR vs ZULFIQAR AND ANOTHERs1970 P Cr. L J 1042 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-10Read 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 dismissing an application to recall a transfer order. The petitioner, the brother of the deceased and the complainant in a murder case, sought to challenge the transfer of the trial from the Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, to the Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, on the grounds that the transfer order was passed without notice to him. The core legal question was whether the complainant or a relative of the deceased is a necessary party to a transfer application in a criminal case and thus entitled to notice and a hearing. The Supreme Court held that in criminal murder trials, the only opposing party is the State. Consequently, the relatives of the deceased or the complainant who lodged the First Information Report are neither proper nor necessary parties to the proceedings. The Court affirmed that the petitioner had no legal right to be impleaded or heard in the transfer application, and the High Court was justified in deciding the matter in his absence.
Questions settled- Is the complainant or a relative of the deceased a necessary party to a criminal transfer application?
- Does the complainant in a murder case have a legal right to be heard during proceedings for the transfer of a trial?
- Who constitutes the opposite party in a criminal murder trial?
- ZULFIQAR vs ZULFIQAR AND ANOTHER1970 PLD Lahore 747 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-03Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR AND Another vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1958-03-20Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, which reversed the trial court's acquittal of the appellants and convicted them of dacoity with murder under section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of evidence to sustain convictions for dacoity, specifically regarding the identification of recovered property and the reliability of forensic evidence linking an accused to the crime scene. The Supreme Court held that while the conviction of one appellant, Zulfiqar, was supported by direct evidence and forensic proof—specifically, empty shell casings matching the gun recovered at his instance—the conviction of the other appellant, Sultan, was unsafe. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a definitive link between the recovered clothes and the items identified in court, thereby entitling Sultan to the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that in criminal cases, where a critical link in the chain of evidence is missing, the accused must be granted the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Does the failure to link recovered property to items identified in court entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Can a conviction for dacoity be sustained based on forensic evidence linking an accused's recovered weapon to shell casings found at the crime scene?
- Is the reversal of an acquittal by a High Court valid when the prosecution fails to establish a critical link in the chain of evidence?
- ZULFIQAR ALI KHAN AND 10 Others vs MUHAMMAD MUBARAK KHAN AND Other1970 SCMR 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-13Read 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 out of a dispute regarding agricultural land in Okara, Sahiwal, where the petitioners were found to be in possession of an excess area by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner acting as a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1950, and the excess land was allotted to the respondent as an informer. The petitioners' subsequent appeal and revision before the settlement authorities were rejected on the ground that orders passed by a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner are not subject to appeal or revision, a view upheld by the High Court in a constitutional petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that appeals and revisions under Chapter VI of the Act apply only to orders passed in the exercise of ordinary functions under Section 9, and not to orders passed by authorities exercising delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal or revision lies against an order passed by a settlement authority acting as a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
- Do the appeal and revision provisions in Chapter VI of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1950 apply to orders passed under delegated powers?
- ZARDAD vs THE STATE1970 PLD Peshawar 6 · Peshawar High Court · 1969-07-29Read full judgment →
- ZAINAL ABEDIN AND Another vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 776 · Dacca · 1969-10-16Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR AHMAD vs ABDUL AZIZ AND Other1970 SCMR 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-11Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, which had dismissed his writ petition challenging the final order of the Settlement authorities. The core legal question was whether the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner's decision to divide the composite property into independent units and transfer a portion to the respondent, Abdul Aziz, was open to interference in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the Commissioner acted within his jurisdiction in dividing the property and transferring the portion to the respondent, and no valid ground for interference was established. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a competent departmental authority's order passed within jurisdiction cannot be disturbed under writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with a final order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner passed within his powers?
- Whether a composite property can be divided into independent units for transfer to persons in possession?
- ZABTEY KHAN vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 515 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- YUSUF ALI KHAN, BARRISTER-AT-LAW vs THE STATE1970 PLD Supreme Court 350 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-07Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.These two criminal appeals arise from contempt of court proceedings initiated by the High Court against the appellant, a barrister and advocate, resulting in his conviction and sentencing for professional misconduct and contempt. The first appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1969) relates to scandalous allegations of corruption and bias made against a Sessions Judge in a transfer application drafted by the appellant on a client's instructions. The second appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1969) arises from a highly offensive and threatening confidential letter sent directly by the appellant to a High Court Judge, accusing him of personal hostility and bias. The core legal questions concern whether an advocate enjoys absolute or qualified privilege for statements made in pleadings, whether a private communication to a judge constitutes contempt without publication, and the validity of a conditional apology. The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, holding that an advocate's privilege is qualified rather than absolute, that publication is not a strict prerequisite for contempt when a private communication tends to interfere with the administration of justice, and that a defense of justification combined with a tardy, conditional apology does not warrant mitigation.
Questions settled- Whether an advocate enjoys absolute privilege or qualified privilege in respect of defamatory or scandalous statements made in pleadings on behalf of a client?
- Does a private confidential communication sent to a judge containing reflections on his judicial conduct constitute contempt of court in the absence of formal publication?
- Can a plea of justification and truth be legally sustained in proceedings for criminal contempt of court?
- Under what circumstances may an apology be accepted as a mitigating factor in contempt proceedings?
- YOUSAF AND 11 Others vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 591 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-23Read full judgment →
- YOUSAF ALI vs FAZAL MOHAMMAD MALIK AND 3 Other1970 SCMR 681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-12-18Read 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 High Court of West Pakistan rejecting the petitioner's application to be impleaded as a party in pending writ proceedings concerning the transfer of a shop. The petitioner, a local in possession of the shop, had submitted an L.S. Form for its transfer after the initiation of the dispute between other claimants before the settlement authorities. The core legal question is whether a person who was not a party to the proceedings before the settlement authorities is entitled to be impleaded as a party in the resulting writ petition before the High Court. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner was not a party before the settlement authorities and the litigation in the High Court was strictly confined to the dispute between the existing parties regarding the correctness of the transfer, the petitioner had no right to be impleaded in those proceedings. The key principle laid down is that a party who did not participate in the administrative proceedings and lacks direct standing in the pending judicial review between other contenders cannot claim a right to be impleaded as a necessary party in constitutional writ petitions.
Questions settled- Whether a person who was not a party before the settlement authorities can be impleaded as a party in writ proceedings arising therefrom?
- Does a local person in possession of a property who submitted a transfer form after the initiation of departmental proceedings have a right to join pending constitutional litigation between other claimants?
- When is a party considered an interested person entitled to join pending high court writ proceedings?
- YOUNUS SATTAR AND Another vs THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL1970 SCMR 237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-03-07Read 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 the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court of East Pakistan. The petitioners had challenged several notifications issued under the Sea Customs Act, alleging they were violative of the Constitution and issued with mala fide intent to benefit a specific company. The High Court had summarily dismissed the writ petition, reasoning that the relief of tax refund could not be granted under Article 98 of the Constitution, that the petition was filed with delay, and that the allegation of mala fide involved controversial questions of fact requiring evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the petitioners' contentions regarding the summary dismissal of the writ petition merit consideration. Specifically, the Court will examine whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition in its entirety despite the potential validity of other grounds for relief, and whether the pursuit of departmental remedies under the Sea Customs Act justifies the timing of the writ petition.
Questions settled- Can a writ petition be summarily dismissed solely because the relief of refund of taxes is sought?
- Does the pursuit of departmental remedies under the Sea Customs Act constitute a valid explanation for delay in filing a writ petition?
- Is a High Court justified in summarily dismissing a writ petition when multiple grounds for challenge are raised, including allegations of mala fide?
- YAQOOB AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 427 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-14Read full judgment →
- Workmen's Compensation And Authority Under Payment Of Wages Act, Lahore Division, Lahore TOWAKAL HUSSAIN vs THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, P. W. R., LAHORE1970 PLC 88 · Commissioner For Workmen's Compensation · 1967-04-27Read full judgment →
- Workmen's Compensation And Authority Under Payment Of Wages Act, Lahore Division, Lahore NAWAB ALI AND ANATHER vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, P. W. R., LAHORE1970 PLC 22 · Commissioner For Workmen's Compensation · 1968-10-10Read full judgment →