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.
- SALEH AND Another vs THE CROWN1970 P Cr. L J 59 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1954-12-01Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This is a criminal appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Chief Court of Sind, which had upheld the appellants' convictions under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the evidence presented a reasonable possibility that the appellants acted in exercise of the right of private defence of person and property. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution evidence, corroborated by objective physical circumstances such as blood pools, fired cartridges, and dragging marks at the scene of the crime, conclusively disproved the theory of self-defence and fully established the guilt of the appellants. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a plea of private defence must be supported by reliable evidence and consistent objective circumstances at the scene of the crime, and mere superficial anomalies or isolated statements cannot establish such a right in the face of strong, direct, and circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
Questions settled- Whether the evidence in a criminal case presents a reasonable possibility of the appellants' case being true regarding the right of private defence?
- Can a plea of private defence be sustained when physical circumstances at the scene of the crime directly contradict the version put forward by the accused?
- Does the presence of burn marks on dead bodies necessarily support the accused's theory of self-defence when prosecution evidence explains them as resulting from dragged bodies across a burnt hedge?
- SAKHAWAT HOSSAIN Alias DULARIA MIAH vs THE CHAIRMAN, CHAWK BAZAR1970 PLD Dacca 709 · Dacca · 1970-01-30Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD HUSSAIN AND 2 Others vs The STATE1970 SCMR 548 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-02-03Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal arises from an order of the West Pakistan High Court convicting the appellants of contempt of court for allegedly violating a status quo order and a subsequent judgment regarding evacuee agricultural land. The core legal question is whether the appellants deliberately disobeyed the High Court's orders by executing an ejectment order against tenants and taking possession of the disputed land. The Supreme Court held that the appellants had obtained symbolic possession and taken steps regarding the property prior to the status quo order, and that there was insufficient evidence of a deliberate flouting of the court's directions. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellants, establishing that contempt requires clear and deliberate disobedience of a court order not undermined by preexisting lawful actions and bona fide disputes regarding possession.
Questions settled- Whether a party can be held guilty of contempt of court for executing an ejectment order obtained prior to a status quo order?
- Does the execution of revenue proceedings in accordance with pre-existing legal steps constitute a deliberate disobedience of a High Court's status quo order?
- Is a conviction for contempt sustainable when the evidence regarding the violation of a status quo order is inconclusive and lacks a definite finding on possession?
- SAJJAD HUSAIN vs THE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1970 PLC 344 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-01-28Read full judgment →
- SAINDAD AND 3 Others vs The STATE1970 SCMR 504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-07Read 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 criminal appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the petitioners' conviction under Section 325/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were originally charged with robbery and causing injuries, but the trial court acquitted them of robbery charges while convicting them for causing grievous hurt with common intention. The core legal questions were whether the common intention to cause grievous injuries was established and whether the testimony of witnesses could be relied upon for the conviction under Section 325/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite the acquittal on robbery charges. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was justified, noting that the evidence of injured witnesses, corroborated by medical reports, was reliable. The Court affirmed that the acquittal on one charge does not necessitate the rejection of witness testimony regarding other proven offences. The principle laid down is that the testimony of injured witnesses, when supported by medical evidence, remains credible and sufficient for conviction even if other parts of the prosecution's case, such as robbery, are disbelieved by the courts.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of injured witnesses be relied upon for a conviction under Section 325/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the charge of robbery is disbelieved?
- Does the acquittal of an accused on a robbery charge necessitate the rejection of witness testimony regarding other offences committed in the same transaction?
- Is medical evidence sufficient to corroborate the testimony of injured witnesses in a case involving grievous hurt?
- SAILENDRA NATH HALDER vs THE STATE1970 PLD Dacca 690 · Dacca · 1968-10-29Read full judgment →
- SAIFUL KABIR vs THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, HYDERABAD1970 PLC 212 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-05-19Read full judgment →
- SAIFUL KABEER vs THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT1970 PLC 282 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-10-14Read full judgment →
- SAIFBE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KARACHI vs SHABBIR HUSSAIN1970 PLC 54 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-01-20Read full judgment →
- SAID WALI vs AHMAD SAEED AND 5 Other1970 SCMR 623 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-03Read 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 use of a lane onto which the petitioner, Said Wali, opened a new entrance after closing his original entrance from the bazar. The respondents, Ahmad Saeed and Hazrat Shah, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from using the lane. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit as barred by time. However, the High Court accepted the appeal, holding that the use of the lane constituted a continuing wrong, thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action with each use, rendering the suit within time. The core legal question concerns whether the unauthorized opening of a door and use of a private or common lane constitutes a continuing wrong for the purpose of limitation. The Supreme Court is petitioned to examine the correctness of the High Court's finding on limitation.
Questions settled- Does the opening of a door leading into a disputed lane constitute a continuing wrong for the purpose of limitation?
- Whether every fresh use of a lane gives a plaintiff a new cause of action in a suit for permanent injunction?
- SAID SHAH vs ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LAHORE1970 PLC 665 · Industrial Court · 1970-06-26Read full judgment →
- SAID HUSSAIN AND Other vs (1) Mst. MAHBOOB BEGUM AND (2) SETTLEMENT1970 PLD Lahore 69 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-27Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD AZIM AND 5 Others vs THE STATE AND 5 Other1970 PLD Quetta 27 · Balochistan High Court · 1969-10-28Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This revision petition challenged orders directing the registration of a criminal case under the Quetta-Kalat Ordinance II of 1968, arguing that the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prior to the Ordinance's promulgation. The core legal question was whether the new Ordinance could be applied retrospectively to pending proceedings where cognizance had already been taken, and whether the failure to provide a hearing to the accused violated natural justice. The Court held that the impugned orders were without lawful authority. It determined that the Magistrate’s previous remand orders constituted taking cognizance under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Ordinance II of 1968 was substantive law, not merely procedural, and thus could not be applied retrospectively to pending cases. Additionally, the failure to grant the accused a hearing before transferring the case to the special jurisdiction violated fundamental principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders, affirming that pending proceedings under the ordinary law remain protected.
Questions settled- Does the granting of remand orders by a Magistrate constitute taking cognizance of an offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the Quetta-Kalat Ordinance II of 1968 considered substantive law or merely procedural law for the purpose of retrospective application?
- Does the failure to provide a hearing to an accused before transferring a case to a special jurisdiction violate the principles of natural justice?
- Can a District Magistrate delegate powers to an Extra Assistant Commissioner and subsequently retain jurisdiction to pass orders on the same matter without a formal transfer?
- SAID ALAM AND Another vs RAJA SOHRAB KHAN AND 8 Other1970 SCMR 639 · 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 petition for special leave to appeal was directed against a High Court judgment that reversed a trial court's order and permitted pro forma defendants to be transposed as co-plaintiffs. The underlying suit was brought by a reversioner under customary law to contest a land sale made by his father, which had been pre-empted by the petitioner. The plaintiff initially alleged that the other reversioners (the pro forma defendants) had relinquished their claims, but upon their denial, the plaintiff did not object to their transposition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the suit was representative in nature and enured to the benefit of all reversioners. Relying on established precedent, the Court laid down the principle that the transposition of pro forma defendants as co-plaintiffs should be allowed when it is necessary for a complete adjudication of the questions involved in the suit and to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances should pro forma defendants be transposed as co-plaintiffs in a civil suit?
- Does a suit brought by a reversioner under customary law to contest an alienation of land enure to the benefit of other reversioners?
- Can transposition of parties be allowed to ensure a complete adjudication of the dispute and to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings?
- SAID AKBAR vs The STATE1970 SCMR 768 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-24Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against his conviction for the murders of his stepbrother and cousin, sentenced to death by the lower courts. The petitioner challenged the conviction on grounds of misjoinder of charges, arguing that the two murders occurred at different times and locations, and contested the reliability of the dying declarations, claiming they were fabricated or made under prompting. The Supreme Court addressed the legal question of whether the trial was vitiated by misjoinder of charges and whether the dying declarations were sufficient for conviction. The Court held that under the Code of Criminal Procedure (West Pakistan Amendment) Act, 1964, misjoinder of charges constitutes an irregularity rather than a vitiating error, absent proof of substantial prejudice, which was not demonstrated here. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the credibility of dying declarations and the appreciation of evidence are matters of fact, not grounds for special leave to appeal. The petition was dismissed, establishing that procedural irregularities regarding charge joinder do not invalidate a trial unless actual prejudice is shown, and that factual findings on evidence remain within the province of lower courts.
Questions settled- Does a misjoinder of charges automatically vitiate a criminal trial?
- Can a conviction be challenged on the basis of the appreciation of evidence in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Is a trial vitiated by misjoinder of charges if no substantial prejudice is caused to the accused?
- SAID AKBAR AND Another vs THE STATE And 2 Other1970 SCMR 606 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-28Read 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 leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, which had challenged the orders of the Commissioner and the Home Secretary referring the petitioners' criminal case to a tribunal under the West Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1963. The core legal question is whether the Commissioner's apprehension that identification evidence might not be believed by an ordinary court constitutes a valid and lawful ground for referring a criminal case to a tribunal under the Act. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the point raised regarding the validity of the Commissioner's stated reason is of substance and merits detailed consideration. The key principle laid down is that a reference to a tribunal under the West Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1963, must be supported by reasons that strictly relate to the prescribed statutory grounds, and mere apprehension about the credibility of identification evidence in an ordinary court does not suffice.
Questions settled- Does the mere apprehension that identification evidence may not be believed in an ordinary court constitute a valid reason for referring a case to a tribunal under the West Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1963?
- Can an order of the Commissioner referring a criminal case to a tribunal be challenged through a writ petition in the High Court?
- SAHADULLAH MALLICK vs CHAIRMAN, CONCILIATION COURT, MYMENSINGH1970 PLD Dacca 778 · Dacca · 1968-07-22Read full judgment →
- SAES AND Another vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 901 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-24Read full judgment →
- SAEE MUHAMMAD AND Another vs TALIB HUSSAIN SHAH1970 SCMR 641 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-20Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter arises from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent to challenge the sale of land by his father. The trial court dismissed the suit upon finding that the plaintiff had waived his right of pre-emption, but the lower appellate court and the High Court successively decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. Before the Supreme Court, leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the ground that the land sold was evacuee property forming part of the compensation pool. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to establish that the land had not been permanently settled on the vendor prior to the sale, noting that such a factual plea ought to have been raised in the written statement to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to respond. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings regarding the maintainability and merits of the suit.
Questions settled- Does a civil court lack jurisdiction to entertain a pre-emption suit regarding land that was once evacuee property?
- Can a party raise a mixed question of law and fact concerning the status of evacuee property for the first time before the Supreme Court without pleading it in the written statement?
- Whether land included in the compensation pool is immune from pre-emption proceedings if permanent rights had already been conferred on the allottee prior to the sale?
- SABIRA SULTANA AND Another vs BANGUL KHAN AND Other1970 SCMR 116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-03Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioners, heirs of the late Muhammad Tufail, sought to protect their interest in house property that had been mortgaged by another heir. The mortgagee obtained an eviction order from the Rent Controller, which the petitioners challenged. The trial court granted an injunction restraining the implementation of the eviction order. Although the appellate court set aside the injunction, the High Court, in revision, restored it specifically regarding the petitioners' 21/80 share of the property. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the High Court's order effectively partitioned property held in common tenancy, which is undesirable. The Court observed that the mortgage claim covered the entire property, as the mortgaging heir held power-of-attorney from the others. The Supreme Court held that allowing the High Court's order to stand would cause serious interference with the integrity of the suit property by effecting a partition pendente lite. Consequently, the Court stayed the execution of the High Court's order pending the final appeal.
Questions settled- Can a court grant an injunction that effectively partitions property held in common tenancy during the pendency of a suit?
- Is it appropriate for a court to allow the partial implementation of an eviction order against a specific share of a property held in common tenancy?
- SAADULLAH KHAN AND 6 Other vs Mir PIAYO KHAN AND 14 Other1970 PLD Peshawar 150 · Peshawar High Court · 1970-03-20Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This judgment addresses three second appeals arising out of a suit for declaration of sharia shares in property left by an ancestor, Akbar Khan, who died in 1912. The property was initially subject to customary life estates held by female heirs, which ended upon the death of the last surviving life-estate holder, Mst. Sherina, in 1952. The appellants contended that the suit filed in 1955 was barred by time, incompetent for lack of a prayer for possession under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, barred by res judicata, estoppel, and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that the shares were incorrectly calculated. The High Court held that upon the termination of a life estate in 1952, inheritance opens under Shariat and female heirs become co-sharers; thus Article 141 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies, making the 1955 suit timely. Possession of one co-sharer inures to all in the absence of ouster, rendering a declaratory suit without a prayer for possession competent. Finding a prior judgment binding as res judicata, the Court modified the lower appellate court's decree to adjust the specific legal shares accordingly while dismissing the remaining contentions.
Questions settled- Does Article 141 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to suits for possession by Muslim legal heirs upon the death of a female holding a limited life estate?
- Can a co-sharer maintain a suit for a mere declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 without seeking possession where there has been no actual ouster?
- Does Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a subsequent suit for inheritance where the earlier suit was based on a distinct cause of action regarding a gift?
- S. SHABBIR ALI, Ex-OVERSEER, R. T. C., LAHORE vs CHNIRMAN, R. T. C., LAHORE1970 PLC 355 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-04-20Read full judgment →
- S. MUHAMMAD HASHIM AND 9 Other vs DR. S. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR1970 PLD Supreme Court 326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-22Read 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 arose from a revision proceeding before the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, which held that a suit filed by the appellants in the civil court was barred for lack of jurisdiction. The primary dispute concerned property exchanged between an evacuee owner and a displaced person, which exchange was explicitly approved and confirmed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957. The Custodian permitted a suit for specific performance under Section 16(3)(a), resulting in a decree. The appellants, who claimed title via a subsequent transfer by settlement authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, sought a declaration and cancellation of the civil court decree, alleging fraud. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order, holding that under Section 41 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957, civil courts lack jurisdiction to question determinations, legality, or interest creations made by the Custodian. Moreover, the settlement transfer relied on by the appellants had been cancelled by competent authorities, depriving them of locus standi to challenge the exchange.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to question the validity of an agreement of exchange confirmed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957?
- Can allegations of fraud in obtaining an exchange confirmed by the Custodian be adjudicated by a civil court when jurisdiction is barred under Section 41 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957?
- Does a party whose temporary transfer order from settlement authorities has been cancelled retain locus standi to challenge an exchange approved by the Custodian of Evacuee Property?
- S. MEHBOOB ALI vs Tile DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT1970 PLC 198 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-06-12Read full judgment →
- S. M. SARAJUL HUQ vs MESSRS ANOWARA JUTE MILLS LTD., CHITTAGONG1970 PLC 832 · Labour Court · 1970-06-10Read full judgment →
- S. BARKAT IIAYAT KHAN vs THE STATE-1970 P Cr. L J 891 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-25Read full judgment →
- S. A. LATIF vs J. B. DUBASH AND 5 Other1970 PLD Karachi 220 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-22Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This letters patent appeal challenged a single judge's dismissal of an application for an injunction under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to restrain the execution of a restitution order and prevent dispossession. The dispute arose over premises where landlords obtained an ejectment decree against original tenants, leased part of the premises to the appellant during the pendency of an appeal, and the ejectment decree was ultimately set aside, leading the successful tenants to seek restitution under section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a third-party tenant inducted during the execution of a reversed decree is bound by restitution proceedings and whether section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 or the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 protects such a tenant. The court held that the appellant, claiming through the landlords, was bound by the final outcome and that the word 'parties' in section 144 includes legal representatives by assignment or devolution. The court laid down the principle that the reversal of an ejectment decree extinguishes a derivative tenancy created during the interim period, rendering the tenant liable to restitution without invoking the specific rent restriction protections meant for subsisting landlord-tenant relationships.
Questions settled- Does the term parties in Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 include legal representatives and persons claiming through assignment or devolution?
- Does the reversal of an ejectment decree automatically terminate the tenancy rights created by a landlord during the pendency of proceedings?
- Can a third-party tenant inducted during the execution of a decree resist restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the protection of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 apply where the underlying ejectment decree has been reversed and restitution ordered?
- RVHUL AMIN AND 5 OTHERS vs NAGENDRA NATH ROY1970 P Cr. L J 563 · Dacca · 1969-10-29Read full judgment →
- RUSTAM vs The STATE1970 SC M R799 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-22Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioner Rustam sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, which had sentenced him to transportation for life under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Noor Mohammad. The Supreme Court first condoned a six-day delay in filing the petition upon a satisfactory explanation. Examining the merits, the prosecution case rested on eyewitness testimony establishing that the petitioner shot the deceased due to a motive involving a dispute over marriage and prior altercations. The petitioner's plea of self-defence was rejected as it was not raised before the Committing Magistrate and lacked reliable evidentiary support. However, considering the circumstances that the parties jointly owned trees sold prior to the incident, the possibility of sudden provocation upon the deceased's intervention could not be ruled out. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in commuting the sentence to transportation for life, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal can be condoned upon a satisfactory explanation regarding the absence of the counsel's clerk?
- Does the mere relationship of eyewitnesses to the deceased furnish a sufficient ground to disbelieve their testimony?
- Can a plea of self-defence be sustained when it was not raised before the Committing Magistrate and lacks supporting evidence?
- Whether transportation for life is an appropriate sentence in a murder case where the possibility of sudden provocation cannot be ruled out?
- RUSTAM vs THE STATE-1970 P Cr. L J 984 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-04Read full judgment →
- RUKAN-UD-DIN vs GHULAM MUSTAFA AND ANOTHER1970 PLD Lahore 797 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-28Read full judgment →
- ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE vs SIKANDAR AFZAL AND ANOTHER1970 PLC 163 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-07-10Read full judgment →
- ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 181970 PLC 576 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE vs LIAQAT ALI AND ANOTHER1970 PLC 266 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-01-02Read full judgment →
- ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE vs GENERAL SECRETARY, ROAD1970 PLC 569 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-05-30Read full judgment →
- ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LABOUR UNION (REGD.) AND ANOTHER vs ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE1970 PLC 458 · Industrial Court · 1970-04-15Read full judgment →
- RICHARD BENJAMIN WHEELER HAINES-- Plaintiff vs ISMAIL AND Other1970 PLD Karachi 628 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-23Read full judgment →
- RIAZ K. HAQ AND Others vs SAID K. HAQ1970 SCMR 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-10Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter concerns a procedural adjournment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case involving the registration of an arbitration award. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether it was appropriate to proceed with an application to make an arbitration award a rule of court while the registration of that same award was currently being challenged in a separate writ petition before the High Court. The Supreme Court held that it was necessary to adjourn the current petition sine die, pending the final outcome of the High Court proceedings. The Court reasoned that the validity and enforceability of the award in the civil proceedings were contingent upon the Registrar's order regarding registration being maintained. Consequently, the Court directed that the proceedings before the Civil Judge be kept alive but stayed, prohibiting any final order from being passed until the High Court resolved the writ petition. This decision establishes the principle that where a fundamental prerequisite for a legal remedy is sub judice in a parallel proceeding, the court should stay the main matter to avoid inconsistent or premature adjudications.
Questions settled- Can a court proceed with an application to make an arbitration award a rule of court while the registration of that award is challenged in a pending writ petition?
- Is it appropriate to adjourn a petition sine die when the outcome of a parallel writ petition determines the viability of the main proceedings?
- RIAZ AHMAD vs TAHIR JAHANGIR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB1970 PLC 509 · Industrial Court · 1970-01-19Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD vs GENERAL MANAGER, NATURAL GAS FERTILIZER1970 PLC 472 · Industrial Court · 1968-08-28Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD Alias RAJOO AND Another vs THE STATE1970 PLD Lahore 689 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-24Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ULLAH Alias REHMAN vs THE STATE AND Another1970 SCMR 299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-16Read 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 arose from an order of the High Court cancelling the post-arrest bail previously granted to the appellant by the Sessions Judge under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a murder case. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and a co-accused climbed onto a roof armed with guns, where the co-accused fired at another person but fatally hit the deceased. The appellant was granted bail by the Sessions Judge due to unclear vicarious liability, but the High Court cancelled it, reasoning that investigating officers' findings of innocence did not constitute legal evidence in a capital charge. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the bail, holding that while police opinions are not legal evidence, findings of innocence by three successive investigating officers cast doubt on the prosecution case and put one on inquiry. Consequently, the appellant's vicarious liability and common intention under Sections 301 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 required further inquiry, entitling him to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether the opinion of investigating officers declaring an accused innocent, though not legal evidence, can warrant further inquiry into guilt for the purpose of granting bail?
- Whether uncertain vicarious liability of an accused under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 justifies the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the High Court properly cancel bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where the accused's participation and common intention require determination at trial?
- REHMAT ALI vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ADDITIONAL1970 SCMR 391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-02-09Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal, subsequently converted into an appeal by consent of the parties, concerning a dispute over the allotment of agricultural land under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The core legal question involved determining the respective entitlements of the appellant, who claimed land as an informer, and the respondent, a sitting allottee, following conflicting records regarding the transfer of produce index units. The Supreme Court observed that the Chief Settlement Commissioner’s previous order, which cancelled the appellant's allotment, relied on a Patwari report indicating no record of the appellant's produce index units in the relevant village. Upon review, the Court found that the appellant may have already exhausted his total entitlement through other allotments, potentially invalidating his claim. Consequently, the Court set aside the previous orders and remanded the case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Gujranwala, for a fresh inquiry and adjudication. The holding emphasizes that the Chief Settlement Commissioner must re-examine the allotment records and the preferential status of sitting allottees versus informers in accordance with the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme.
Questions settled- Does a sitting allottee have a preferential claim to land allotment against an informer who transfers their claim to the same village?
- Can the Chief Settlement Commissioner review allotment claims based on a fresh inquiry into the exhaustion of an allottee's total entitlement?
- Is an allotment order valid if it is based on a Patwari report that fails to account for verified produce index units?
- RAWALPINDI IMPROVEMENT TRUST, RAWALPINDI vs (1) THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF REHABILITATION AND WORKS, RAWALPINDI,1970 PLD Lahore 760 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioner, an Improvement Trust, challenged the Central Government’s decision to modify a land acquisition sanction, which excluded certain evacuee property already transferred to third parties under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the writ petition was maintainable in the absence of these transferees, who were not impleaded as respondents. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. The ratio is that the transferees possessed valuable property rights that would be directly and adversely affected by the success of the petition; therefore, they were necessary parties who were entitled to be heard. The Court affirmed the fundamental principle that no person should be deprived of valuable rights without an opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the Court refused the petitioner’s belated request to implead these parties, noting that the Trust had been aware of the transfers for years. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, emphasizing that such defects cannot be cured after an inordinate delay.
Questions settled- Are transferees of evacuee property necessary parties in a writ petition challenging the acquisition of that same property?
- Can a petitioner be permitted to implead necessary parties after an inordinate delay when the petitioner was aware of their interest from the start?
- Does the existence of a legal infirmity in a transfer of property deprive the transferee of the right to be heard in proceedings affecting that property?
- RASOOL IWKSR vs THE STATE-.Respondent1970 P Cr. L J 768 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-10Read full judgment →
- RASOOL BUX Alias DOBAL vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND TRIBUNAL, KARACHI1970 P Cr. L J 935 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-17Read full judgment →
- RASOOL BAKHSH vs THE STATE1970 PLD Supreme Court 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-13Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan upholding the conviction of the appellant, Rasool Bux, for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the appellant and his brother, Lal Bux, entered the house of Shah Muhammad to abduct his daughter, and upon being challenged by neighbours, Lal Bux fired a fatal shot at Dhani Bux while Rasool Bux fired two shots in the air to frighten the villagers and facilitate their escape. The core legal question was whether Rasool Bux shared the common intention to kill so as to attract constructive liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, given that he only fired in the air. The Supreme Court held that both accused acted in furtherance of a common intention to make good their escape by using their weapons if resisted, making Rasool Bux constructively liable. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of transportation for life were maintained.
Questions settled- Whether firing in the air during an escape negatives a common intention to murder under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Can a participant in a crime be held constructively liable under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code when their overt act differs from that of the principal offender?
- Does Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code require proof of pre-concert or can a common consensus be formed at the spur of the moment?
- RASHID vs THE STATE AND 2 Other1970 PLD Lahore 389 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-22Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This is an application under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the release of an illegally or improperly detained person, Rashid. The core legal question concerns the legality of remanding an accused to custody under sections 167 and 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without assigning reasons, and whether such illegal detention is cured by the subsequent filing of a charge-sheet and a valid remand order. The Lahore High Court held that while remanding an accused is a judicial function requiring the application of mind and the recording of reasons, an initially illegal detention is validated once a charge-sheet is subsequently filed and a proper remand order is passed by the Magistrate. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principles laid down are that remand orders under sections 167 and 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must not be granted mechanically without assigning reasons, but a subsequent lawful remand and filing of a charge-sheet cures any initial defect in detention.
Questions settled- Whether a Magistrate is required to assign reasons when remanding an accused to custody under section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the subsequent filing of a charge-sheet and a valid remand order cure an initially illegal detention?
- Is the function of granting a remand under sections 167 and 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a judicial function?
- RASHID AHMAD vs The STATE1970 SCMR 770 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan maintaining the appellant's conviction under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and a sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine. The prosecution case was that the appellant, an Assistant Rehabilitation Officer, demanded and accepted illegal gratification from the complainant under threat of sealing his workshop, and was caught red-handed during a trap laid by Anti-Corruption Authorities. The core legal question was whether the amount paid to the appellant was genuine rent due or illegal gratification, and whether the prosecution witnesses were accomplices requiring corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the evidence conclusively proved the money was a bribe, that the receipt produced by the defense was a fabricated document created after the arrest, and that neither the complainant nor the clerk who forged the bill were accomplices. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction.
Questions settled- Whether a decoy witness participating in an anti-corruption trap is considered an accomplice whose testimony requires corroboration?
- Does a person who involuntarily assists in fabricating a document after the fact qualify as an accomplice?
- Whether the acceptance of money under the guise of recovering government rent, when disproved by official records and jurisdictional facts, sustains a conviction for corruption?
- RASHID AHMAD GHULAM HASSAN AND Another vs HIGH COURT BAR1970 SCMR 643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-23Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter concerns petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court, which dismissed appeals filed by individuals declared as touts. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners were validly declared touts under the Legal Practitioners Act and whether the resolution of the High Court Bar Association, which formed the basis for these proceedings, was duly convened and valid. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were properly declared touts, affirming the lower court's findings. The Court relied on a previous decision, Civil Petition No. 143 of 1969, which had already settled the issue regarding the validity of the High Court Bar Association's meeting and resolution, finding that the meeting was duly convened. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that familial relationship with an Advocate provided immunity from being declared a tout. The key principle laid down is that a resolution of a Bar Association, when properly convened, constitutes valid evidence of general repute under the Legal Practitioners Act, and such administrative/disciplinary findings are not subject to challenge on grounds lacking logical merit or previously adjudicated validity.
Questions settled- Is an order declaring a person a tout under the Legal Practitioners Act considered a 'judgment' appealable under the Letters Patent?
- Can a resolution of a Bar Association serve as evidence of general repute for the purpose of declaring a person a tout?
- Does a familial relationship with an Advocate provide immunity from being declared a tout under the Legal Practitioners Act?
- RANJIT KUMAR CHATTERJEE vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS1970 PLC 618 · Calcutta High Court · 1968-06-28Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 1 · Sindh High Court · 1968-11-12Read full judgment →
- RAJJAB ALI SK. AND OTHERS vs MD. AFSARUDDIN SARDAR1970 P Cr. L J 409 · Dacca · 1969-10-08Read full judgment →
- RAJAB ALI Alias RAJOO vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 668 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-29Read full judgment →
- Raja MUHAMMAD ALAM vs Mst. AKBARI BEGUM AND Another1970 SCMR 647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-23Read 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 judgment of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, which maintained the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant. The core legal question is whether a statutory tenant under section 30(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, can be ejected on the ground of subletting the property when no notice of transfer of the property has been served on him. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that while notice of transfer is necessary to determine the six-year protection period against ejectment, no such notice is required when ejectment is sought on the ground that the statutory tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the property in contravention of section 30(3)(ii). The key principle laid down is that the protection from ejectment does not apply and notice of transfer is not a prerequisite for eviction if the statutory tenant violates section 30(3) by subletting the premises.
Questions settled- Is a statutory tenant liable to be ejected on the ground of subletting if notice of the transfer of the property has not been served on him?
- What is the significance of the notice of transfer regarding the six-year protection period of a statutory tenant?
- Under what circumstances does the protection period of a statutory tenant cease to apply under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Raja MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN vs Mst. SULTANA AND Another1970 SCMR 584 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-15Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal challenged an order of the High Court of West Pakistan, which held the appellant guilty of contempt of court for refusing to accept service of a notice issued by a Guardian Judge. The core legal question was whether the mere refusal to accept service of a court notice constitutes contempt of court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. The Court held that while the respect due to a court extends to its processes, mere refusal to accept service does not amount to contempt unless the individual exhibits contumacious conduct, such as using insolent, indecent, or violent language, or assaulting the process-server. The Court emphasized that contempt requires proof of a contumacious disregard for the court's authority. Since the appellant simply refused the notice without further disrespectful behavior, and given that alternative legal mechanisms existed to enforce the court's order, the appellant's actions did not lower the dignity of the court or constitute contempt. Consequently, the conviction was overturned.
Questions settled- Does the mere refusal to accept service of a court notice constitute contempt of court?
- What specific conduct is required to elevate a refusal to accept court process to the level of contempt?
- Can a party be held in contempt of court if they refuse service but do not use insolent or indecent language?
- RAHMAT ULLAH vs THE MANAGER, PAK. LABORATORIES LTD., DACCA1970 PLC 801 · Labour Court · 1970-05-16Read full judgment →
- RAHMAT BAKSH Alias DAROGA ALI vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 1292 · Dacca · 1970-03-06Read full judgment →
- RAHMAN AND 2 Others vs The STATE1970 SCMR 701 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1959-10-23Read 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 modifying convictions and sentences passed by the Sessions Judge in a murder and rioting case. The core legal question concerns the existence of an unlawful assembly, whether the incident was a sudden fight, and the application of constructive liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that the High Court misread the evidence in concluding there was no unlawful assembly; the accused had gathered armed with deadly weapons and surrounded the complainants' party with the common object of using violence. The Court restored the application of constructive liability read with section 149 for certain appellants while maintaining the murder conviction and death sentence of the principal offender. The key principle laid down is that where a group of persons gather armed and actively pursue a common object of violence, constructive liability under section 149 is attracted, and a sudden alteration or arrival of a victim does not automatically negate the existence of an unlawful assembly.
Questions settled- Does the gathering of armed individuals who surround a complainants' party establish an unlawful assembly and common object under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Whether the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence regarding the existence of a sudden fight versus a pre-planned attack?
- Can constructive liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained when members of an unlawful assembly are armed and participate in an assault?
- RAHIS MIA vs K. A. KHAN AND 5 Other1970 PLD Dacca 399 · Dacca · 1967-04-07Read full judgment →
- RADHA KANTA BANIK vs THE PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN AND 2 Other1970 PLD Dacca 457 · Dacca · 1968-04-26Read full judgment →
- RAB NAWAZ vs DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER1970 PLC 61 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-03-18Read full judgment →
- R. A. KARIM vs MESSRS THE KARACHI AMERICAN SOCIETY1970 SCMR 492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-13Read 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 leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the dismissal of the petitioner's suit for the recovery of retention money deducted from running bills in connection with a school building construction contract. The core legal question was whether the disputed sum of retention money was excluded from the scope of a prior compromise deed and arbitration award that settled all claims between the parties. The Supreme Court held that the comprehensive wording of the compromise deed and subsequent correspondence conclusively demonstrated that all claims, demands, and matters relating to the construction agreement stood fully discharged and settled upon the payment of the awarded sum. The Court laid down the principle that a party cannot re-litigate or claim separate sums arising from a contract after executing a broad compromise deed and accepting payment in full and final satisfaction of all potential claims.
Questions settled- Whether a party can claim a separate sum after executing a compromise deed releasing all claims arising from a construction agreement?
- Does an arbitration award delivered in terms of a comprehensive compromise deed bar subsequent suits for amounts allegedly excluded from the dispute?
- Can a party dispute the scope of a full and final settlement after accepting payment under the terms of a compromise agreement?
- Qazi SALEEM vs MANAGER, NATIONAL PRODUCTS COMPANY, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1970 PLD Karachi 33 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-31Read full judgment →
- Qazi RAHMAN GUL vs The STATE1970 SCMR 755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-26Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had set aside his acquittal by a Magistrate and convicted him under Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The prosecution case was that following a dispute regarding the petitioner's children breaking a window pane, the petitioner fired two pistol shots at the complainant and subsequently grappled with him before being apprehended at the scene by the Station House Officer. The trial magistrate had acquitted the petitioner, accepting his plea of accidental discharge and disbelieving certain prosecution witnesses. The High Court reversed the acquittal, holding that the trial court's assessment was flawed, ignored material evidence such as the testimony of disinterested police officials and physical circumstances, and failed to provide cogent reasons. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court is entitled to independently assess the entire evidence and interfere to prevent a miscarriage of justice when the trial court's view is unreasoned or perverse. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in setting aside an acquittal when the trial court has failed to give cogent reasons for discarding reliable evidence?
- What is the scope and power of the High Court when hearing an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a plea of accidental discharge of a firearm be sustained when contradicted by physical circumstances and medical or forensic evidence?
- Qazi MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And Another1970 P Cr. L J 1181 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-13Read full judgment →
- Qazi MUHAMMAD QADIR KHAN vs Molvi GHULAM MOHYUDDIN AND ANOTHER1970 SCMR 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-13Read 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 West Pakistan, which had reversed the First Appellate Authority's decision and restored the Rent Controller's order for the ejectment of the petitioner. The respondents had sought the petitioner's eviction from two properties on grounds of non-payment of rent and the requirement of the premises for reconstruction. The petitioner contested the eviction, denying the landlord-tenant relationship and claiming entitlement to compensation for a godown he had constructed on the premises. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could be evicted for default in rent payment and whether the Rent Controller was obligated to award compensation for improvements made by the tenant. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly determined the existence of a tenancy and the default in rent payment, justifying the eviction. Furthermore, the Court held that the Rent Controller lacked the statutory authority to award compensation for improvements, noting that the petitioner could pursue such claims in separate proceedings. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 empower a Rent Controller to award compensation to a tenant for improvements made to the rented premises?
- Can a tenant claim compensation for construction on rented property within the context of ejectment proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- QAMAR vs THG STATE1970 P Cr. L J 195 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-30Read full judgment →
- QADAR BAKHSH AND 3 Others vs The STATE1970 SCMR 795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-11Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the High Court's refusal to interfere with an order of commitment passed by the District Magistrate, Mekran, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involve whether the failure of the committing court to examine prosecution witnesses, to call upon the accused for a list of defence witnesses, and to examine the accused under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code vitiates the commitment order and causes prejudice. The Supreme Court held that while the first two grounds did not warrant quashment, the failure of the committing court to examine the accused under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code was a substantial ground causing potential prejudice, thereby warranting the grant of leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the mandatory examination of an accused by the committing court is a substantial safeguard, and its omission can form a valid basis for granting leave to appeal against an order of commitment.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a committing court to examine the accused under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code cause prejudice warranting leave to appeal?
- Whether the omission to call upon an accused to give a list of defence witnesses is sufficient ground to quash an order of commitment?
- Can the High Court decline to interfere with an order of commitment on the ground that no prejudice was caused to the petitioners?
- PURNENDU DASTIDAR vs GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY HOME (POL.) DEPARTMENT AND 2 Others1970 P Cr. L J 11 · Dacca · 1968-11-11Read full judgment →
- PURNA CHANDRA MONDAL vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 746 · Dacca · 1970-01-21Read full judgment →
- PURBO PAK. JUTE MILLS SRAMIK UNION vs PURBO PAKISTAN JUTE MILLS LTD, DACCA1970 PLC 887 · Labour Court · -Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN vs Haji ABUL HUSSAIN1970 PLD Dacca 76 · Dacca · 1967-11-13Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN vs ABDUR RASHID1970 SCMR 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-12-04Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal filed by the Province of East Pakistan, challenging the removal of an arbitrator and the subsequent appointment of a new one. The respondent had entered into a contract with the Province involving earth filling, which contained an arbitration clause designating a Superintending Engineer as the sole arbitrator. Following a dispute, the arbitrator failed to take any action on the reference for several months. Consequently, the respondent filed a suit under the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking the arbitrator's removal. The trial court removed the arbitrator for failing to proceed with reasonable dispatch and appointed a new arbitrator. The core legal question was whether an arbitrator's failure to act warrants removal under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, or if it falls under Section 8. The Supreme Court held that Section 11 explicitly empowers the court to remove an arbitrator who fails to use reasonable dispatch. As the new arbitrator had already made an award which was made a rule of the court, the petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an arbitrator's failure to proceed with reasonable dispatch justify their removal under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Can a court remove an arbitrator who fails to enter upon a reference and make an award within a reasonable time?
- PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN vs ABDUR RASHID Opposite Party1970 PLD Dacca 69 · Dacca · 1969-03-21Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN vs ABDUL JALIL MOLLA AND Other1970 PLD Dacca 718 · Dacca · 1968-08-16Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN vs ABDUL HAMID DARR AND Other1970 SCMR 558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-25Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The Province of East Pakistan filed petitions for leave to appeal against High Court orders refusing to condone significant delays in filing appeals regarding compensation awards under the Town Improvement Act, 1953. The core legal question was whether the loss of official files constitutes 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and whether the Government is entitled to special treatment regarding limitation periods. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's refusal, holding that the Government is not exempt from the law of limitation and must be treated like any ordinary litigant. The Court emphasized that the party seeking condonation must explain each day of delay and that the loss of files due to departmental negligence does not constitute sufficient cause. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it will not interfere with a High Court's discretionary order under Section 5 unless such discretion was exercised arbitrarily or perversely. The key principle established is that the Government cannot claim preferential treatment in limitation matters, and departmental negligence is not a valid ground for condoning delay.
Questions settled- Does the loss of official files by a government department constitute 'sufficient cause' for the condonation of delay under the Limitation Act, 1908?
- Is the Government entitled to be treated differently from an ordinary litigant regarding the application of the law of limitation?
- Is it the duty of a party seeking condonation of delay to explain each day of the delay?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's discretionary order refusing to condone delay?
- PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND Another vs HIRALAL AGARWALA1970 PLD Supreme Court 399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-22Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter originated from the conviction of one Durga Prasad Agarwala by a Magistrate 1st Class, Dinajpur, under Section 6 of the East Pakistan Control of Essential Commodities Act 1956, resulting in a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment, a fine, and the forfeiture of foodstuffs. The convict's son, Hiralal Agarwala, challenged the conviction and sentence before the High Court of East Pakistan via a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate who tried the case possessed the requisite jurisdiction, specifically whether the trial was required to be conducted by a Special Magistrate appointed under Section 4 of the East Pakistan Control of Essential Commodities Act 1956. The High Court accepted the petitioner's contention that the convicting Magistrate lacked jurisdiction, as the statute mandated trial by a Special Magistrate. Consequently, the High Court quashed the proceedings, while noting that the accused could be tried by a competent court if so advised. The judgment affirms the principle that statutory requirements regarding the designation of specific courts for trial must be strictly adhered to for a conviction to be valid.
Questions settled- Does a Magistrate 1st Class have jurisdiction to try an offence under the East Pakistan Control of Essential Commodities Act 1956?
- Is a trial conducted by a Magistrate other than a Special Magistrate appointed under Section 4 of the East Pakistan Control of Essential Commodities Act 1956 legally valid?
- Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court?
- PRESIDENT, HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION, LAHORE vs Raja MAULA DAD Alias1970 PLD Lahore 146 · Lahore High Court · 1969-03-07Read full judgment →
- PIRAN DITTA vs THE STATE And 2 Other1970 SCMR 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-10-08Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, which acquitted the respondents. The petition was barred by five days. The core legal question before the court was whether the delay in filing a petition for special leave to appeal against an acquittal could be condoned on the ground that the petitioner was unaware of the reserved judgment's announcement until a later date. The Supreme Court held that the delay could not be condoned, noting that the explanation regarding lack of notice does not suffice unless the petitioner was prevented by an act of the respondent from filing the petition in time. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as barred by time. The key principle laid down is that in acquittal matters, delay is condoned only where the petitioner is prevented by an act of the respondent from filing the petition for special leave to appeal within the prescribed limitation period.
Questions settled- Can delay in filing a petition for special leave to appeal against an acquittal be condoned due to lack of notice of a reserved judgment?
- Under what circumstances is delay condoned in acquittal matters before the Supreme Court?
- PIRAL SHAH vs THE STATE1970 PCr.LJ 1111 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-03Read full judgment →
- PIR MUHAMMAD vs THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT1970 PLC 158 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-02-17Read full judgment →
- PIR MUHAMMAD vs DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER1970 PLC 74 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-02-17Read full judgment →
- PIR MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 2 Other vs THE STATE1970 PLD Karachi 399 · 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 under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Abdul Qayum and sentenced to transportation for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi. The incident arose from a prior dispute over a house and a settlement by the Union Council. The prosecution relied on ocular testimony, circumstantial evidence, and oral and written dying declarations. On appeal, the Sindh High Court examined the credibility of the eye-witnesses and found their presence at the scene doubtful and their conduct unnatural. The court also scrutinized both oral and written dying declarations, noting infirmities, lack of certification regarding the mental fitness of the deceased, and material contradictions regarding the presence of co-accused. Holding that the dying declarations and ocular evidence did not inspire confidence and lacked reliable corroboration, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants.
Questions settled- Can a dying declaration form the sole basis for a conviction without corroboration if it is found to be free from taint and reliable?
- Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses whose presence is doubtful and whose conduct is unnatural can be relied upon to sustain a murder conviction?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the mental and physical fitness of the maker of a dying declaration impair its evidentiary value?
- How should courts evaluate discrepancies between oral and written dying declarations in criminal trials?
- PIR BAKHSH AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 442 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-17Read full judgment →
- PHULPIR SHAH vs The STATE1970 SCMR 801 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1959-11-02Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This is an appeal by special leave arising from a criminal matter where the appellant, Phulpir Shah, was convicted by the Sessions Judge under section 304-II of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment for causing the death of Yaqub. The High Court upheld the conviction but enhanced the sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment upon petitions filed by a relation of the deceased. The core legal question before the Supreme Court involved evaluating the sustainability of the conviction and the evidentiary value of eye-witnesses and dying declarations, particularly regarding discrepancies pointed out by the trial court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that concurrent findings of fact regarding the appellant's role in causing the death were established by trustworthy dying declarations and corroborated eye-witness testimony, thereby affirming the conviction and enhanced sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in enhancing the sentence under section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Can the evidence of eye-witnesses be discarded merely on minor discrepancies or questionable presence when corroborated by dying declarations?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the cause of death can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- PAYMENT OF WAGES INSPECTOR, UJJAIN vs SURAJMAL MEHTA AND ANOTHER1970 PLC 561 · Supreme Court of India · 1968-12-03Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN WESTERN RAILWAY, LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD USMAN1970 PLC 401 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-10Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN vs MD. ABDUS QUDDUS1970 SCMR 152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-06-23Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal by special leave arises from a civil suit instituted by the respondent, an officer of the Income-tax Department, challenging his absorption and initial appointment as an Income-tax Officer Class II Grade III following the abolition of his previous post as an Appellate Officer of Sales Tax. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent's absorption into a lower grade constituted an illegal reduction in rank and whether the civil courts could grant declaratory reliefs invalidating such administrative appointments without consequential enforceable rights. The Supreme Court held that the civil suit was misconceived, as the abolition of the respondent's temporary extra-cadre post gave him no legal right to demand an equivalent status, and granting a bare declaration invalidating his initial appointment without consequential relief would destructively unravel his subsequent 18 years of service, promotions, and confirmations. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that a government servant cannot claim a specific administrative status or equivalent post as a matter of legal right following the abolition of a post, and courts ought not to grant declaratory reliefs that produce anomalous consequences without a firm legal foundation.
Questions settled- Whether the abolition of a civil servant's post gives them a legal right to demand an appointment to an equivalent post of the same status and powers?
- Does the absorption of an officer into a lower grade following the abolition of their post amount to a reduction in rank enforceable by a civil suit?
- Can a court grant a bare declaratory relief invalidating an initial appointment when such a declaration nullifies years of subsequent service, confirmations, and promotions?
- PAKISTAN THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, P. W. R., LAHORE vs MRS. A. V. ISSACS1970 PLD Supreme Court 415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-07-10Read 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 suit filed by the respondent against the Federation of Pakistan seeking a declaration that her discharge from service was illegal, along with claims for arrears of salary and compensation. The trial court granted only the declaration, denying arrears of salary based on the doctrine that a public servant's remuneration is a bounty of the Crown, a principle established in prior Pakistani jurisprudence following the Privy Council decision in I. M. Lall's case. On appeal, the High Court held that the bounty theory was no longer applicable and allowed the arrears of salary. The core legal question was whether a civil servant has a legally enforceable right to sue the State for arrears of salary or whether such remuneration constitutes a mere bounty of the State. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that civil servants have always had a legally enforceable right to recover accrued salary, that the theory of the bounty of the State never applied in pre-Independence India or Pakistan, and that the previous rulings following I. M. Lall and Mehrajuddin were incorrect. The court laid down the principle that remuneration earned by a public servant is a debt and a contractual right enforceable by action, and where a dismissal is declared unlawful, the civil servant is entitled to arrears of salary as a consequential relief, subject to mitigation.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can maintain a suit against the State for the recovery of arrears of salary?
- Does the doctrine of the bounty of the State apply to the remuneration of civil servants in Pakistan?
- Is a civil servant entitled to arrears of salary as a consequential relief when an order of dismissal is declared unlawful and void?
- Whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to the attachment of salary establish that remuneration is a recoverable debt?
- PAKISTAN REFUGEE REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION vs K. S. KAMMU1970 SCMR 297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-12Read 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 West Pakistan High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the execution of a decree. The petitioner, the Pakistan Refugee Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, sought to attach funds held by the respondent, K.S. Kammu, to recover an outstanding loan. The petitioner argued that under the Pakistan Refugees Rehabilitation Finance Corporation Ordinance 1948, it was entitled to recover sums due as arrears of land revenue. The core legal question was whether the Corporation could unilaterally determine the amount due and attach the respondent's decretal funds without a prior judicial or competent determination of the debt. The Supreme Court held that while the Corporation may recover sums as arrears of land revenue, it lacks the authority to unilaterally quantify the debt, especially where the Corporation had previously taken over the respondent's business. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the Corporation cannot attach the respondent's decree until the specific amount due is determined in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can a statutory corporation unilaterally determine the amount of a debt due to it to facilitate recovery as arrears of land revenue?
- Is a prior determination of the exact debt amount by a competent authority a prerequisite for attaching a decree under the Revenue Recovery Act 1890?
- Does the power to recover sums as arrears of land revenue authorize a corporation to bypass judicial determination of disputed liabilities?
- PAKISTAN NATIONAL OILS LTD., DACCA vs THE CHAIRMAN, SECOND LABOUR1970 PLC 727 · Dacca · 1969-12-17Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN NATIONAL OILS LTD., DACCA vs THE CHAIRMAN, SECOND LABOUR1970 PLD Dacca 712 · Dacca · 1969-12-17Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN NATIONAL OILS LTD., DACCA vs THE CHAIRMAN, SECOND LABOUR1970 PLC 733 · Dacca · 1969-12-17Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN NATIONAL OILS LTD., DACCA vs THE CHAIRMAN, SECOND LABOUR1970 PLD Dacca 707 · Dacca · 1969-12-17Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN MEDICAL SUPPLIES (DACCA) vs MESSRS FARBENFABRIKEN BAYER A.1970 PLD Dacca 651 · Dacca · 1968-07-03Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN EXPRESS CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs REGISTRAR, CO OPERATIVE1970 SCMR 55 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-09Read full judgment →
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 from an order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the supersession of its Managing Committee by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and its replacement by an Administrator. The core legal questions involved whether the Registrar had the legal authority under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 to supersede the Managing Committee through rules framed under section 71, whether individual notices were required for suspension, and whether sufficient opportunity of defense was granted. The Supreme Court held that clauses (g) and (ga) of subsection (2) of section 71 provide sufficient mandate for rule 48 allowing supersession, that misdescription of the committee as a board of directors is immaterial, that a common notice to the committee is sufficient when allegations are common, and that ample opportunity for defense was provided. The court dismissed the petition, laying down that rule-making powers under section 71 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 can validly encompass the supersession of a co-operative society's managing committee to carry out the purposes of the Act.
Questions settled- Whether the Registrar, Co-operative Societies has the power to supersede the Managing Committee of a co-operative bank under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925?
- Does section 71(2) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 provide sufficient mandate for framing rules regarding the supersession of a Managing Committee?
- Whether individual notices must be issued to every member of a Managing Committee before suspension or if a common notice to the committee suffices?
- What constitutes sufficient opportunity to show cause against the supersession of a co-operative society's Managing Committee?
- PAKISTAN EASTERN BENGAL RAILWAY vs M. L. JHAWAR1970 PLD Dacca 780 · Dacca · 1968-08-15Read full judgment →
- OLYMPIA TEXTILE MILLS WORKERS' UNION, DACCA AND 6 Other vs OLYMPIA1970 PLC 824 · Labour Court · 1970-05-06Read full judgment →
- OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs LT. COL. SHUJAUDDIN AHMED1970 PLD Karachi 332 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This revision petition arose from a dispute between the Oil and Gas Development Corporation and its former employee, Lt. Col. Shujauddin Ahmed, regarding the termination of his services. The respondent sought a declaration and injunction against the termination, which the trial court initially refused. The District Judge, on appeal, granted a temporary injunction, prompting the Corporation to file a revision petition. The core legal question concerned whether the appellate court properly exercised its discretion in granting an injunction that effectively decided the merits of the suit, and whether the respondent, as an employee of a statutory corporation, was entitled to constitutional protections or governed by ordinary master-servant law. The High Court held that the appellate court acted with material irregularity by prematurely deciding the suit's merits and disregarding binding Supreme Court precedents. The Court reaffirmed that employees of statutory corporations generally do not enjoy constitutional guarantees and that courts should be cautious in granting mandatory injunctions that force a servant upon an unwilling master, especially when the balance of convenience does not favor the plaintiff.
Questions settled- Does an employee of a statutory corporation enjoy constitutional guarantees against termination of service?
- Can a court grant a temporary injunction that effectively decides the entire suit before trial?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with the discretionary order of an appellate court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a suit for specific performance maintainable in cases of personal service contracts?