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. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Muhammad Abu Sufyan vs Additional District Judge etc2023 LHC 560 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Rehman vs Punjab Public Service Commission etc2023 LHC 2463 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Additional District Judge and 2 others2023 CLC 1974 · Lahore High Court · 2022-08-03Read full judgment →
• Mubashir Yameen vs Assistant/Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue,2023 PTD 146 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-17
  tax recoverybank account attachmentnotice requirementdue processincome taxwrit petitionconstitutional rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the actions of the tax department in attaching the petitioner's bank accounts and recovering tax through a notice issued under Section 140 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, without first issuing a notice under Section 138 of the Ordinance during the pendency of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue. The core legal question was whether the tax authorities can invoke Section 140 for recovery and attachment of bank accounts without mandatory prior compliance with Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and violation of due process under Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution. The Lahore High Court held that the department is legally required to issue a notice under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, affording the taxpayer reasonable time to pay before invoking Section 140 for recovery measures. The court laid down the principle that statutory procedures for tax recovery must be strictly followed, and failure to issue a pre-recovery notice under Section 138 renders subsequent attachment and recovery actions illegal, void, and violative of fundamental rights to due process and fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the tax authorities are bound to issue a notice under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 before invoking Section 140 for recovery of tax and attachment of bank accounts?
  • Does the failure to issue a pre-recovery notice under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 violate the fundamental rights to due process and fair trial under Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can coercive measures for tax recovery be sustained when an appeal is validly pending before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubashar Ahmad Ayaz vs Late (Moulana) Manzoor Ahmad Chinioti2023 PLJ Lahore 436 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mubashar Ahmad Ayaz vs Late (Moulana) Manzoor Ahmad Chinioti2023 LHC 171 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali vs Zafar Mahmood and others2023 LHC 947 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-14Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ahmad vs Muhammad Hayat (Deceased) Through His Legal2023 LHC 6202 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Sidra-Tul vs Additional Sessions Judge, Muntaha Lahore etc.2023 LHC 6888, 2024 MLD 786 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shehnaz Bibi and another vs The State and another2023 LHC 5817, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 809 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-13
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausewomen accusedfurther inquirygrounds of arrestdelayed FIRfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by two women accused of murder under section 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, being women, were entitled to bail despite the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, noting the unexplained three-month delay in the registration of the FIR and the suspicious, belated production of forensic evidence by the complainant. The court emphasized that under the first proviso to section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail for women is the rule and refusal is the exception, applicable even in offences falling within the prohibitory clause, unless specific grounds for refusal—such as risk of abscondence, tampering with evidence, or repeating the offence—are established. Consequently, the court granted bail, finding the case required further inquiry. Additionally, the court issued directives regarding the mandatory constitutional requirement to inform arrested persons of the grounds of their arrest.

  Questions settled

  • Is bail for a woman accused of an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to be granted as a rule?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute a ground for further inquiry under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the exceptions that justify the refusal of bail for a woman accused of an offence falling within the prohibitory clause?
  • Is the police legally obligated to provide the grounds of arrest to an accused person at the time of detention under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan Bibi (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others vs Mst. Irshad Bibi2023 CLC 673 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharam Ellahi vs Additional District Judge and others2023 YLR 497 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharaini Bibi and another vs Additional District Judge and 2 others2023 MLD 51 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Shafiq and 2 others vs Mst. Gulnar Khalid and 4 others2023 YLR 1329 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahida Perveen etc vs Muhammad Akram Baig2023 LHC 2603, 2025 CLC 177 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shabeena Younas vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and 3 others2023 PLD Lahore 453 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shabana Kausar, The State vs The State, Mst. Shabana Kausar2023 LHC 5484, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 449 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-17
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtextrajudicial confessionchain of custodycriminal appealmurder referenceDNA evidencejoint possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of a minor and concealment of evidence. The prosecution’s case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including motive, extrajudicial confession, recovery of the body, and DNA analysis. The Court held that in cases of unseen occurrences, circumstantial evidence must form a continuous, unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime; any missing link mandates acquittal. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence unreliable: the motive was inconsistent, the extrajudicial confession was contradicted by the timing of the arrest, and the recovery of the body from a joint-possession area was insufficient for conviction. Furthermore, the DNA evidence was deemed unreliable due to a broken chain of custody and the fact that the appellant handled the evidence under duress. Emphasizing that the benefit of the doubt is a right, not a concession, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of evidence is broken?
  • Is an extrajudicial confession reliable if it contradicts the timing of the accused's arrest?
  • Does the recovery of a dead body from a place in joint possession constitute sufficient evidence for a capital conviction?
  • Is DNA evidence admissible if the chain of custody is not proven and the evidence was handled by the accused under duress?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Seema Yousaf etc. vs District Judge etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 212 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sara Akhtar, etc. vs Mehmood Khan, etc.2023 LHC 5185, 2024 YLR 2130 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Zia vs Federation of Pakistan & others2023 LHC 6183 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Kausar and others vs Mst. Nasreen Bibi and others2023 LHC 6258 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Bibi vs Govt. of Punjab through Secretary etc.2023 LHC 2566 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saima Noreen vs State and anotherPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 371, 2024 PLD Lahore 522 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-31
  Call Data Recordadditional evidenceappellate stageelectronic evidenceforensic analysisvoice transcripttelecommunicationnarcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 428 read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to bring additional evidence in the form of Call Data Records (CDRs) on record in a pending narcotics appeal arising from a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act 1997. The core legal question was whether unverified photocopies of CDRs and the summoning of a telecom representative can be allowed as additional evidence at the appellate stage to prove the identity or presence of witnesses and accused at a crime scene. The Lahore High Court dismissed the application, holding that a CDR alone merely indicates the usage of a SIM within the jurisdiction of a cell tower and is inconclusive regarding the identity of the user without voice transcripts, audio recordings, and forensic analysis. The court laid down the principle that additional evidence at the appellate stage under Section 428 Cr.P.C. will not be permitted for evidence that was within the party's knowledge during trial but not produced, and that electronic records must be duly proved in accordance with the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Call Data Record (CDR) alone conclusively establish the identity and presence of a specific person at a crime scene without voice recordings and forensic analysis?
  • Under what circumstances can additional evidence be produced at the appellate stage under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a printout of an automated information system admissible as primary evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • What are the mandatory legal requirements for proving audio tapes or video recordings before a court of law in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saima Naeem vs M/s Habib Bank Ltd. and another2023 LHC 459 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saima Naeem vs Habib Bank Limited through Manager_Officer_Attorney and another2023 CLD 1244 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saidan, etc. vs Muhammad Yousaf, etc.2023 LHC 4826, 2023 PLJ Lahore 900, 2024 YLR 1394 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sadaf Rasheed vs Senior Civil Judge, etc2023 LHC 2265 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sadaf Rasheed vs Senior Civil Judge and others2023 PLD Lahore 412 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rubina Khatoon vs Asj/Jop, etc2023 LHC 6438, 2024 PLJ Lahore 476 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Robina Shehnaz, etc. vs Mukhtar Begum, etc.2023 LHC 168, 2023 PLJ Lahore 374, 2024 YLR 550, 2023 [M] CLR 141 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Resham Begum (deceased) through L.Rs. vs Kenth, etc.2023 LHC 909, 2024 YLR 40 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rajan Bibi etc vs Muhammad Saddique etc2023 LHC 517 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nooran Mai through legal heirs vs Shafqat Ali2023 YLR 57 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nighat Waheed and others vs Arif Latif2023 CLC 543 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nawab Bibi (deceased) through L.Rs vs Hakim Ali and others2023 LHC 5523, 2024 PLJ Lahore 160, 2024 CLC 895 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Bibi vs District Police Officer etc.2023 LHC 4601, 2023 PLJ Lahore 854 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Namoo Bibi and others vs Sardar Allah Yar Hiraj (Deceased) through Legal Heirs and others2023 MLD 1630 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Nadara Parveen etc. vs Additional District Judge etc.2023 LHC 2994 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musarrat vs Muhammad Shafi and others2023 MLD 175 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mukhtar Begum, etc. vs Mst. Mumtaz Asghar (deceased) through L.Rs., etc2023 PLJ Lahore 286 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Liaqat Sultana and others vs Mst. Mumtaz Tahawar and others2023 MLD 1405 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Lalarukh Saqlain and 3 others vs Punjab Health Department through Secretary and 4 others2023 YLR 222 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kishwar Sultana vs Nizam-Ud-Din (Deceased), through Legal Heirs2023 CLC 1349 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khursheed Begum (deceased) through Legal Heir vs Abdul Wahid2023 LHC 4367, 2024 PLJ Lahore 10, 2024 YLR 493 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaneeza Bibi and 4 others vs Sabir Hussain and 3 others2023 PLD Lahore 380 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaneez Fatima, etc. vs Ghulam Hussain (deceased) through Legal2023 LHC 6276, 2025 YLR 302 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaneez Batool vs Allah Bukhsh and another2023 LHC 2290, 2024 CLC 630 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Bibi vs Ghulam Mustafa, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 550 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Bibi and others vs Additional District Judge and others2023 PLD Lahore 157 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ilyas Akhtar vs Province of Punjab and others2023 YLR 2441 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haseena Mai vs The State and 04 others2023 LHC 7438, 2024 PCRLJ 1443 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-22
  criminal revisionsummoning of witnessSection 540 Cr.P.C.video linkprosecution evidencejust decision of the caseprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon a witness after the prosecution had closed its evidence and the accused’s statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were recorded. The core legal questions were whether the trial court erred in refusing to summon the witness and whether recording an accused's statement via video link caused prejudice. The Court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the application, noting that the proposed testimony was redundant as other witnesses had already testified to the relevant facts. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to explain why the witness was not cited earlier despite his availability. Regarding the video link, the Court held that the complainant failed to demonstrate any prejudice, and the accused raised no objection. The principle laid down is that the power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is discretionary and reserved for evidence essential to a just decision, not for filling gaps in the prosecution's case after evidence has concluded.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court allow the summoning of a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the prosecution has closed its evidence and the accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has been recorded?
  • Is the testimony of a witness essential for the just decision of a case if the facts they are intended to prove have already been established by other prosecution witnesses?
  • Can a complainant challenge the recording of an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 via video link if the accused themselves raises no objection?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajra Bibi (deceased) through her legal heirs vs Bashir Ahmad2023 LHC 322 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulnaz Ajmal, The State vs The State, Mst. Gulnaz2023 LHC 6219, 2024 PCRLJ 1054 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-23
  murderextra-judicial confessionchance witnessbenefit of doubtcriminal appealdeath sentenceforensic evidencerecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of her husband and four children. The prosecution’s case rested on an alleged extra-judicial confession and the recovery of weapons. Upon review, the Lahore High Court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court held that the ocular account provided by the complainant and witnesses was unreliable, as they were chance witnesses who failed to provide a plausible explanation for their presence at the crime scene during the early hours. Furthermore, the Court determined that the extra-judicial confession was suspect and lacked independent corroboration. The recovery of weapons was also deemed tainted due to procedural lapses and the lack of forensic evidence linking the appellant to the crime. Emphasizing that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution even when an incident occurs within the accused's home, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of an extra-judicial confession without strong independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal status of a chance witness who fails to provide a plausible reason for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does the occurrence of a crime within the accused's home shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused?
  • Is the recovery of incriminating articles valid if the recovery witnesses are the same as the ocular witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gul Baha vs G.M. Pakistan Railways, etc.2023 LHC 2839, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 811 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-25
  family pensionunmarried sistersuccession certificatecivil servantpensionary benefitsWest Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to allow family pension to the petitioner, who is the unmarried sister of a deceased civil servant. The core legal question was whether an unmarried sister is entitled to family pension under the relevant service rules when prior civil court orders and succession certificates in her favor have attained finality, and how preferential rights of family members are structured. The court held that since the deceased's sons were over twenty-four years of age and thus disentitled, the petitioner as the surviving unmarried sister fell within the preferential order under the applicable rules and was entitled to family pension. The court laid down the principle that under Rule 4.10 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963, family pension is governed by a strict hierarchical order of beneficiaries without requiring prior nomination by the deceased employee, and findings in final succession proceedings regarding entitlement are binding.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unmarried sister of a deceased civil servant is entitled to family pension under the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963?
  • Does Rule 4.10 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 require nomination by the deceased employee for the grant of family pension?
  • Can sons above the age of twenty-four claim family pension under Rule 4.10 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farida Bibi etc. vs Judge Family Court etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 154, 2024 MLD 145 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Erum Latif vs Imtiaz Khan and others2023 CLC 252 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bharai Bibi and others vs Muhammad Arif and another2023 [M] CLR 1 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bhagan Bibi, etc vs Addl. District Judge, etc2023 LHC 5886 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Beenish vs Additional District Judge etc2023 LHC 975 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asma Abdul Waris vs State Bank of Pakistan and 4 others2023 PLJ Lahore 510 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asma Abdul Waris vs State Bank of Pakistan & 04 others2023 LHC 1286, 2023 PLJ Lahore 510, 2024 PLC 170, 2024 CLD 956 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-20
  service matterjurisdiction of State Bank of Pakistanbanking companytermination of serviceregulatory authorityintra court appealconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges an order passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition against the State Bank of Pakistan's refusal to interfere in her termination from a commercial bank. The core legal question is whether the State Bank of Pakistan, as a regulatory authority, possesses the statutory jurisdiction under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, to intervene in human resource and service matters of employees of banking companies. The Lahore High Court held that the State Bank of Pakistan is merely a regulatory body whose statutory powers—including those under Section 11 and Section 41 of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962—do not extend to adjudicating service disputes, termination matters, or terms and conditions of employment of private bank employees. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that jurisdiction cannot be conferred where the law does not provide it, and that statutory functions must be exercised strictly in the manner prescribed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the State Bank of Pakistan have the jurisdiction under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 to entertain service matters and HR disputes of employees of commercial banks?
  • Whether Section 11 of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 empowers the State Bank of Pakistan to regulate the terms and conditions of service of bank employees.
  • Can jurisdiction be conferred on an authority by parties or through the doctrine of discrimination when the law does not expressly provide for it?
  • What is the extent of the regulatory powers of the State Bank of Pakistan under Section 41 of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 regarding internal bank management?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aniza and another, Nasir Mehmood vs Additional District Judge and 022023 LHC 2744, 2023 PLJ Lahore 923 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Anayatan Bibi and another vs Maqsood Ahmad and others2023 PLJ Lahore 259 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amna Majeed vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary Primary2023 PLC (C.S.) 620 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-10
  constitutional ousterservice tribunal jurisdictioncivil servant transfermaintainabilityterms and conditions of servicenon obstante clausewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a civil servant invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge an internal transfer order within the same district. The core legal question is whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a service matter concerning terms and conditions of service in light of the constitutional bar imposed by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, notwithstanding allegations of mala fide, want of jurisdiction, or violation of internal policies. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition as non-maintainable, holding that Article 212 contains a non obstante clause giving it precedence over Article 199, thereby completely ousting the jurisdiction of all other courts in matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants, including transfers. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional ouster under Article 212 is impregnable, absolute, and cannot be read down or bypassed on grounds of mala fide, coram non judice, or absence of jurisdiction, as exclusive jurisdiction vests in the Administrative Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a service matter involving the transfer of a civil servant in the face of the bar contained in Article 212?
  • Does the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution apply when an order is challenged on the grounds of mala fide, coram non judice, or lack of jurisdiction?
  • Whether Article 212 of the Constitution takes precedence over Article 199 due to its non obstante nature?
  • Can a civil servant bypass the Administrative Tribunal and invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court during the statutory waiting period for a departmental representation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amman Gul vs Learned Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi and 2 others2023 LHC 590 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amman Gul vs Judge Family Court, Rawalpindi and 2 others2023 CLC 1300 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-15
  execution petitionFamily Courttransfer of decreecivil procedureterritorial jurisdictiondecree enforcementWest Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple transfer applications concerning the execution of decrees passed by Family Courts in Punjab. The core legal question concerns the proper procedure for transferring execution petitions when a judgment debtor resides or holds property outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court that passed the decree. The Court examined the conflict between invoking Section 25-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and utilizing the execution mechanisms provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that Family Courts are not distinct entities from Civil Courts regarding execution, as Section 13(4) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, places them on an equal footing. Consequently, the Court ruled that parties should move the respective executing courts directly for the transfer of execution petitions, rather than relying exclusively on the transfer powers under Section 25-A of the Act. The Court affirmed that Family Courts possess the inherent powers of an executing court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, distinguishing execution proceedings from original adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Family Court have the authority to transfer execution proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a Family Court considered a Civil Court for the purpose of executing decrees?
  • Must execution petitions be transferred under Section 25-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, or can they be transferred under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the Family Court have the power to adopt the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to facilitate the execution of decrees?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Alia Shameem vs National Bank of Pakistan and others2023 CLD 359 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-26Read full judgment →
• Ms. Zeeshan Zia Raja vs Dr. Nadeem Kiani and 8 others2023 YLR 2104 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-18Read full judgment →
• Ms. Fozia Naseem vs Higher Education Commission, Islamabad through Secretary and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S) 876 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-01
  Constitutional petitionLachesEstoppelEligibility criteriaHigher Education CommissionRecruitment processEquitable jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an advertisement for the post of Associate Professor (BPS-20) at Government College University, Faisalabad, arguing the university’s eligibility criteria conflicted with Higher Education Commission (HEC) guidelines. The core legal questions concerned the university's authority to set higher qualifications than HEC minimums and whether the petition was maintainable given the significant delay in filing. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that while HEC sets minimum criteria, educational institutions may prescribe higher qualifications. Furthermore, the Court ruled the petition was barred by the principle of laches and estoppel. The petitioner waited 22 months to challenge the advertisement, during which the recruitment process advanced and rights accrued to other candidates. The Court emphasized that constitutional jurisdiction is equitable; thus, relief may be refused even against potentially void orders if the petitioner is guilty of laches or acquiescence. The principle established is that equity aids the vigilant, not the slumbering, and a petitioner cannot challenge a recruitment process at its final stage after failing to act with due diligence, as doing so would cause injustice to other participants.

  Questions settled

  • Can a university prescribe eligibility criteria for faculty appointments that are higher than the minimum criteria set by the Higher Education Commission?
  • Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the ground of laches even if the impugned order is alleged to be void?
  • Does a petitioner's failure to challenge a recruitment advertisement within a reasonable time create an estoppel against them?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Tanveer Rafique vs Government of The Punjab through Secretary2023 PLC (C.S.) 580 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-14
  constitutional petitionservice benefitsretrospective application of lawjudicial reviewerror of factcivil servantdepartmental promotion committeeadministrative inertia
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) which denied the petitioner, a retired Headmistress, promotional benefits based on a Supreme Court judgment. The core legal question was whether the DPC could reject a claim for benefits—initiated by the petitioner while in service—by applying subsequent legislative amendments retrospectively and mischaracterizing the claim as one for antedated promotion. The Court held that the DPC’s decision was vitiated by a misdirection in law and fact. It found that the petitioner had diligently pursued her claim since 1995, long before the 2005 amendments to the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, were enacted. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Department could not rely on retrospective application of law or its own administrative inertia to deny legitimate entitlements. The key principle laid down is that administrative decisions based on erroneous factual premises or the retrospective application of law to pending claims are subject to judicial review. The Court set aside the DPC’s order and directed the implementation of the Supreme Court’s judgment regarding the petitioner's service benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department apply a statutory amendment retrospectively to deny a claim for benefits initiated before the amendment's enactment?
  • Does the doctrine of 'error of fact' allow for judicial review of an administrative decision based on a mistaken factual premise?
  • Can an administrative authority deny a civil servant's claim for benefits by relying on its own delay and inertia in processing the application?
  • Is a claim for promotional benefits initiated during service barred by subsequent legislation prohibiting promotion after retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Saira Fatima Sadozai vs D.I.G. Investigation and others2023 PCRLJ 427 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-14
  transfer of investigationre-investigationPolice Order 2002District Standing Boardfair trialcriminal investigationconstitutional petitionspeaking order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Investigation, Lahore, transferring the investigation of a criminal case after the challan had been submitted to the trial court and charges framed. The core legal question was whether an investigation can be legally transferred or re-investigated post-challan, and what procedural requirements govern such an order. The Court held that while there is no absolute legal embargo on transferring investigations after the submission of a challan, the authority must exercise its power judiciously. The Court established that the opinion of the District Standing Board under Article 18A of the Police Order, 2002, is merely advisory and not binding; the decision-maker must independently examine the facts and record express, valid reasons in writing for the transfer. Because the impugned order relied blindly on the Board's recommendation without articulating specific reasons or identifying deficiencies in the previous investigation, it was set aside. The matter was remanded for a fresh, speaking order, emphasizing the necessity of judicial transparency and proper notification to the trial court when retrieving case files.

  Questions settled

  • Can an investigation be transferred or re-investigated after the challan has been submitted to the trial court?
  • Is the opinion of the District Standing Board binding on the Head of District Police when deciding on a transfer of investigation?
  • What are the requirements for a valid order transferring an investigation under Article 18A of the Police Order, 2002?
  • Is it necessary to notify the trial court when retrieving police case files for the purpose of re-investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Naveeda Nisa vs Province of The Punjab and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 150 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-19
  constitutional petitionvoluntary retirementretrospective operation of lawpensionary benefitsPunjab Civil Servants Actstatutory interpretationcivil service law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of the District Accounts Officer to process the petitioner's pension papers following her voluntary retirement. The core legal question was whether the amendment to Section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which mandated that voluntary retirement requires both 25 years of service and the attainment of 55 years of age, applied to the petitioner whose retirement order was issued on August 24, 2021. The petitioner argued that the amendment, enacted via an Act on October 29, 2021, should not apply retrospectively. The court held that the Ordinance introducing these conditions was promulgated on May 3, 2021, and was continuously extended without a break until the Act's passage. Consequently, the law was in force at the time of the petitioner's retirement. The court affirmed that while legislation affecting substantive rights generally does not operate retrospectively, the continuous validity of the Ordinance meant the amended conditions were applicable to the petitioner's case. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to meet the statutory age requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Does an amendment to the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 regarding voluntary retirement apply to a civil servant whose retirement order was issued after the promulgation of the initial Ordinance?
  • Can an Ordinance that is extended without break until the enactment of an Act be considered continuously in force for the purpose of determining the applicable law?
  • Does the principle against retrospective legislation apply when the law in question was already in force via an Ordinance at the time of the event?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Kaneez Fatima vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others2023 PLD Lahore 324 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-27
  High Court JudgeAssistance packageVested rightLocus poenitentiaeService benefitsConstitutional petitionOffice memorandumPensionary benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, widow of a deceased High Court Judge, challenged the withdrawal of a government assistance package previously extended to her. The core legal question was whether the widow of a High Court Judge who died in service is entitled to benefits under the Prime Minister’s revised assistance package, or if her entitlements are restricted solely to the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997. The Court held that Paragraph 29 of the said Order allows for additional privileges beyond those specified in Paragraph 28, enabling judges and their spouses to claim benefits applicable to officers of the rank of Secretary to the Government of Pakistan. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to the assistance package. The judgment affirmed that once a benefit has been granted and acted upon, it creates a vested right. Applying the principle of locus poenitentiae under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Court held that the executive cannot unilaterally rescind such benefits without lawful justification, thereby setting aside the impugned office memorandums that sought to withdraw the petitioner's entitlements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the widow of a High Court Judge is entitled to benefits under the Prime Minister's revised assistance package in addition to those provided under the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent the executive from unilaterally withdrawing a benefit once it has been granted and acted upon?
  • Do Office Memorandums issued by the government have the force of law regarding terms and conditions of service?
  • Does Paragraph 29 of the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997, allow for privileges beyond those explicitly listed in Paragraph 28?
  Read full judgment →
• Mozammil Iqbal vs Deputy Director (HR) Punjab Emergency Service, Lahore2023 PLC (C.S.) 979 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-07
  disciplinary proceedingsregular inquirymisconductPEEDA ActPunjab Emergency Serviceremoval from serviceback benefitsprocedural due process
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the petitioner's removal from service as a Medical Technician with the Punjab Emergency Service. The core legal question was whether the respondent authority could impose the major penalty of removal from service based on unsatisfactory performance reports and allegations of misconduct under Rule 4(5) of the Punjab Emergency Leave Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 2007, without conducting a regular inquiry as mandated by the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The Court held that the impugned removal orders were unsustainable due to procedural illegality. It established that Rule 4(5) does not dispense with the requirement for a regular inquiry under the PEEDA Act, 2006. The Court emphasized that when an employee is stigmatized by allegations of misconduct, a regular inquiry is mandatory unless explicitly dispensed with by the competent authority under Section 5(1)(a) of the PEEDA Act. Consequently, the Court set aside the removal orders, reinstated the petitioner, and allowed the department to initiate de-novo proceedings in accordance with the law, while denying back benefits due to the procedural nature of the relief.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee be removed from service for misconduct under Rule 4(5) of the Punjab Emergency Leave Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 2007 without a regular inquiry?
  • Does the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 have overriding effect over the Punjab Emergency Leave Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 2007?
  • Is a regular inquiry mandatory before imposing a major penalty of removal from service when allegations of misconduct are involved?
  • Can back benefits be denied to an employee reinstated solely due to procedural defects in disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Rasool vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal Government, Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others2023 CLC 1713 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mohmad vs S.H.O. etc2023 LHC 2489 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-27Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Aslam Wadani vs Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, D.G. Khan and 2 others2023 YLR 130 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-17Read full judgment →
• Mistary Shahid Karim vs Mistary Shahid Karim2023 CLC 2140 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-20Read full judgment →
• Mirza Waqar Ahmed and others vs Ayesha Zeeshan and others2023 MLD 1000 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mirza Waqar Ahmad etc vs Ayesha Zeeshan, etc2023 LHC 965 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mirza Shahzeb vs City Police Officer, Police Line, Rawalpindi and 4 others2023 PLC (C.S) 749 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-16
  police recruitmentconcealment of factscriminal recordcandidature rejectionpolice servicemisstatementjudicial precedent
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the rejection of their candidature for the post of Constable in the Punjab Police Department, which occurred due to their failure to disclose previous involvement in criminal cases during the application process. The core legal question was whether the concealment of past criminal involvement, even if followed by acquittal, justifies the rejection of a candidate for a police position. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the concealment of material facts at the time of recruitment disentitles a candidate from appointment. The Court emphasized that police personnel must maintain high standards of integrity and honesty; thus, a misstatement or concealment of criminal history at the inception of recruitment undermines the credibility of the candidate's character, rendering them unsuitable for service. The Court further clarified that previous judicial views permitting such appointments were per incuriam, affirming that recruitment policies requiring full disclosure are mandatory. The judgment reinforces the principle that honesty at the entry stage is a sine qua non for law enforcement roles.

  Questions settled

  • Does the concealment of previous involvement in a criminal case justify the rejection of a candidate for the post of police constable?
  • Is a candidate's acquittal in a criminal case sufficient to excuse the failure to disclose that criminal involvement in a recruitment application?
  • Can a Bench of the High Court deviate from a view taken by a Bench of the same number of judges without referring the matter to a larger bench?
  • Does the concealment of criminal history during the recruitment process constitute a valid ground for disqualification from police service?
  Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muhammad Akbar Baig vs Add. District Judge, etc2023 LHC 983, 2024 CLC 979 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mian Zohaib Aslam Advocate vs Returning Officer and another2023 LHC 2170 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mian Tariq Mehmood vs Election Commission of Pakistan & others2023 LHC 542 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-01Read full judgment →
• Mian Tariq Aziz vs The State etc2023 LHC 2572, 2024 YLR 1264 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-23
  concurrent civil and criminal proceedingsstay of criminal proceedingsforged sale deedinherent jurisdictionprobative value of forensic reportquashing of criminal proceedingsprejudice to accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged orders of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's plea under section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to stay criminal proceedings in an FIR concerning alleged forgery of a sale deed while civil suits involving the same property were pending. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of civil litigation concerning the same subject matter. The Lahore High Court held that while civil and criminal proceedings can generally proceed concurrently, criminal proceedings must be stayed if the accused's criminal liability or the complainant's locus standi is inextricably linked to or dependent on the outcome of pending civil litigation, to prevent conflicting decisions and grave injustice. The court accepted the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed that the criminal proceedings remain stayed until the final decision of the civil cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of civil litigation concerning the same subject matter?
  • Whether the pendency of a civil suit operates as an absolute bar to the maintainability of criminal proceedings?
  • Is a forensic science report regarding a disputed document conclusive evidence under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the guiding principles for the High Court when exercising discretion to stay criminal proceedings under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Manzoor Ahmad through L.Rs. vs Mian Muhammad Akbar and 52023 PLJ Lahore 408 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mian Manzoor Ahmad through L. Rs vs Mian Muhammad Akbar and 52023 LHC 175 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mian Ejaz Amir vs Haji Muhammad Ibrahim2023 CLC 880, 2023 CLD 534 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mian Bilal vs Muhammad Razzaq, etc.2023 LHC 3331 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-08Read full judgment →
• Mian Babar Rasheed vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and another2023 PLD Lahore 720 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-24Read full judgment →
• Mian Arif Said vs Province of Punjab etc2023 LHC 4015, 2024 PLJ Lahore 109, 2024 PCRLJ 1037 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-11
  writ petitionillegal detentionremandanti-terrorismcriminal investigationseparation of powerstest identification parade
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged their detention and the remand orders passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court in connection with FIR No. 96/2023, alleging procedural irregularities, illegal custody, and invalid identification parades. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to interfere in ongoing criminal investigations and whether temporary non-production of an accused before a Magistrate renders detention illegal. The Court held that the investigation of criminal cases falls within the domain of the police, and the High Court should not interfere in ongoing investigations when adequate alternative remedies exist. It further held that any initial procedural irregularity, such as the non-production of an accused during a remand hearing, is cured once the Magistrate subsequently takes cognizance and passes a remand order in the presence of the accused. The key principles laid down are that writ jurisdiction under Article 199 is not for bypassing established criminal procedures, allegations of malafide must be specifically pleaded and proven, and the separation of powers requires judicial restraint regarding police investigations.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction to interfere in an ongoing criminal investigation where adequate alternative remedies are available?
  • Does the temporary non-production of an accused before a Magistrate during a remand proceeding render the subsequent detention illegal?
  • Is a general allegation of malafide against police officials sufficient to warrant a judicial inquiry into investigation files?
  • Does the regularization of detention by a Magistrate in the presence of the accused cure prior procedural irregularities in the remand process?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Abdul Ghaffar vs Muhammad Anwar Saeed (deceased) through L.Rs.2023 PLD Lahore 275 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs World call Telecom Ltd. through Chief Financial Officer vs Government of The Punjab through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 6 others2023 PTD 1 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Tradhol International Sa Sociedad Unipersonal vs Messrs2023 CLD 819, 2023 PLD Lahore 621 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-28
  foreign arbitral awardrecognition and enforcementNew York Conventionpro-enforcement biaspublic policy exceptionexclusive jurisdiction of High Courtagreement in writingLCIA award
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under Sections 3, 5, and 6 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award rendered by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) under English law. The respondent raised objections under Section 7 of the Act read with Article V of the New York Convention, claiming the underlying agreement was invalid due to lack of authorization/execution and that enforcing the award would violate Pakistan's public policy because civil court proceedings were pending locally. The Lahore High Court allowed the application, holding that High Courts have exclusive jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Act over foreign arbitral matters. It held that the respondent failed to prove invalidity, exchange of modern electronic communications satisfied 'agreement in writing' requirements under Article II, and commencing local civil proceedings in breach of an arbitration clause does not trigger the public policy exception under Article V(2)(b). The court re-affirmed the doctrine of pro-enforcement bias.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have exclusive jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 to handle foreign arbitration enforcement matters?
  • Can electronic communications and emails fulfill the requirement of an 'agreement in writing' under Article II of the New York Convention?
  • Does the initiation of civil suit proceedings in local courts by one party constitute a ground to refuse enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under the public policy exception of Article V(2)(b)?
  • How is the doctrine of pro-enforcement bias applied by courts in Pakistan when considering objections to foreign arbitral awards?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs S.M. Nisar and Company through Managing Partner and others vs Askari Bank Limited, Branch High Street, Sahiwal2023 CLD 1021 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Presson Descon International (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan2023 PTD 516 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aamar vs State etcPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 948, 2023 PLD Lahore 757 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-08
  post-arrest bailsexual violenceAnti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021victim identity protectionrape investigationjudicial directionscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail for an accused charged under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, involving the alleged abduction and rape of a minor. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the incriminating material on record. The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for bail, noting his specific nomination in the FIR, corroborating statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and medical evidence that did not rule out sexual assault. Beyond the immediate bail decision, the Court addressed the systemic failure to implement the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021. It issued mandatory directions to the Federal and Provincial governments to establish required infrastructure, including Special Courts, Anti-Rape Crisis Cells, and victim protection systems. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that judicial proceedings must protect the identity of sexual violence victims by using acronyms, and reiterated that sexual history is irrelevant to the determination of guilt in rape cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, prohibit the use of the two-finger test during the medico-legal examination of rape victims?
  • Are courts required to protect the identity of victims of sexual violence in their judgments?
  • Does the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, mandate the establishment of Anti-Rape Crisis Cells and Special Courts?
  • Is evidence regarding the general immorality or sexual history of a victim admissible in trials for sexual offences under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Multan Brain Center through Partner and 3 others vs National Bank2023 CLD 1448 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mandviwalla Builders And Developers and another vs M. Awais2023 CLD 885 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-01
  territorial jurisdictioncompany lawregistered officeCompanies Act 2017Company Benchcivil original petitionjurisdiction of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court to entertain a petition filed under Section 286 of the Companies Act, 2017. The core legal question was whether the court could assume jurisdiction over a company matter when the registered office of the petitioner company was situated outside the territorial limits of the bench in question. Relying on Section 5 of the Companies Act, 2017, the Court held that jurisdiction in company matters is exclusively determined by the location of the company's registered office. Finding that the petitioner company's registered office was situated in Lahore, the Court concluded that the Rawalpindi Bench lacked the requisite territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, directing that the petition be returned to the petitioners for filing before the appropriate Company Judge at the Principal Seat. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a court must determine its jurisdiction at the commencement of proceedings, as any decision rendered without jurisdiction is void ab initio.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a company matter if the company's registered office is located outside the bench's territorial limits?
  • Is a court legally obligated to decide the question of its own jurisdiction at the commencement of proceedings?
  • What is the effect of a court rendering a decision in a matter where it lacks territorial jurisdiction?
  • How is the registered office of a company determined for the purpose of establishing territorial jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 2017?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Malik Mazhar Hussain Goraya vs Government of Punjab and others2023 PLD Lahore 257 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-23
  local governmentadministrator appointmentdevolution of powerdevelopment fundsconstitutional mandateinterim setupprovincial cabinet approvalelection commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the legality of the appointment of Administrators for Local Governments in Punjab and their authority to utilize Development Funds for schemes proposed by MNAs and MPAs in the absence of elected representatives. The core legal questions were whether the Chief Minister could unilaterally appoint Administrators without Cabinet approval and whether such interim appointees could exercise powers reserved for elected local governments, particularly regarding development project prioritization and funding. The Court held that the appointment of Administrators by the Chief Minister without Provincial Cabinet approval was without lawful authority. Furthermore, the Court ruled that interim Administrators lack the mandate to initiate new development projects or exercise powers reserved for elected representatives. The Court declared that allocating development funds to MNAs and MPAs for local projects is unconstitutional and illegal, as it encroaches upon the autonomy of local governments mandated by Article 140A of the Constitution. The judgment emphasizes that interim setups must be confined to day-to-day public service continuity, not policy-making or major financial commitments, and mandates the Election Commission to hold local government elections without further delay.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Chief Minister appoint Administrators for local governments without the approval of the Provincial Cabinet?
  • Are interim Administrators empowered to initiate new development projects or exercise powers reserved for elected local government representatives?
  • Is the allocation of development funds to MNAs and MPAs for projects within the domain of local governments legally permissible?
  • Does the absence of elected local governments authorize the provincial government to exercise powers and functions reserved for elected local bodies?
  Read full judgment →