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.

• Qaiser Abbas, etc vs The State, etcK.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 153 · Lahore High Court
  criminal appealcircumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionlast-seen evidencebenefit of doubtmurderdeath referenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentence of the appellants arising from a murder case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically extra-judicial confessions and last-seen evidence. The Lahore High Court examined the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions and delayed disclosures in last-seen testimony, reiterating that both are weak forms of evidence requiring independent, unimpeachable corroboration, which was absent in this case. The Court emphasized that one tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another, and any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative by declining to confirm the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession in a criminal trial?
  • Can a delayed statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 form the basis of a reliable last-seen piece of evidence?
  • Whether one tainted piece of evidence can corroborate another tainted piece of evidence in criminal jurisprudence?
  • Is medical evidence alone sufficient to connect an accused person with the commission of a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Abbas and 8 others vs The Province of Punjab and 2 others2017 LHC 4308 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-22Read full judgment →
• Qadir Dad vs Easel, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 1216 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-11Read full judgment →
• Qadir Dad vs Easal etc.2017 LHC 1979 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-11Read full judgment →
• Qadeer Ahmad vs Ejaz Ahmad through L.Rs, and others2017 YLR 1217 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-21
  civil revisionpartition suitjurisdiction of civil courtadmission at barex parte decreemisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the petitioners' suit for possession through partition of joint properties was dismissed. The trial court had dismissed the suit on the grounds that ownership proof for a commercial property was lacking and the remaining properties were agricultural, falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of the revenue forum, an approach affirmed by the lower appellate court despite the plaintiffs' un-rebutted ex parte evidence. The Lahore High Court examined whether a civil court has jurisdiction over joint agricultural and urban properties and whether an admission made at the bar by counsel against the record is conclusive. The Court held that the lower courts misread the documentary evidence, which actually showed the properties to be residential or commercial rather than agricultural, and that civil courts maintain ultimate jurisdiction over such properties. Furthermore, the Court held that a factual admission made in ignorance of law or record is not binding and does not create an estoppel unless acted upon to another's detriment. Consequently, the revision was accepted, the impugned judgments were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Civil Court is equipped with jurisdiction to try and decide a suit for possession through partition qua common agricultural and urban properties falling in the joint holding of the parties?
  • Whether an admission against the record and fact made at the bar before a court of law is to be treated as conclusive?
  • Can a plaint of a suit be rejected or returned in piecemeal when multiple properties of mixed nature are involved?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Higher Education Commission vs Dr. Aurangzeb Alamgir, etc2017 LHC 1400 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-27Read full judgment →
• Punjab Higher Education Commission vs Dr. Aurangzeb Alamgir and others2017 PLD Lahore 489 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-27
  higher education standardsprovincial autonomycooperative federalismVice Chancellor appointmentSearch Committeeconstitutional interpretationlegislative competenceHigher Education CommissionCouncil of Common Interestsintra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerned a challenge to notifications issued by the Higher Education Department, Government of Punjab, regarding the constitution of a Search Committee and criteria for selecting Vice Chancellors in public sector universities. The core legal questions revolved around the legislative competence of the Province to set standards in higher education, given Entry 12 of Part-II of the Federal Legislative List and the subject of "education" falling in the unwritten Residuary List post-18th Constitutional Amendment. The court also examined the nature of standards set by the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002, and the role of the Council of Common Interests (CCI). The High Court held that both the Federation (setting minimum national standards) and the Provinces (setting higher standards) have legislative power in this area, guided by cooperative federalism. It found Section 14(2) and (4) of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973, and similar provincial provisions, to be intra vires the Constitution. The impugned notifications were declared valid, and the CCI was directed to review HEC standards. The Single Judge's judgment, which had struck down the provincial provisions and notifications, was set aside.

  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Employees Social Security Institution vs Zulfiqar Ali and 22017 PLD Lahore 457 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-28
  social security contributionprovincial ombudsmanalternative statutory remedyconstitutional petitionjurisdictiondemand notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged orders passed by the Provincial-Ombudsman and the Governor of the Punjab directing the Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (PESSI) to withdraw a demand notice and de-notify an establishment. The core legal question was whether an employer can bypass statutory remedies provided under the Social Security Ordinance, 1965, to approach the Provincial-Ombudsman regarding a contribution dispute. The Lahore High Court held that the employer was legally bound to exhaust the efficacious statutory remedies available under Sections 57 and 59 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965, by first raising the dispute before the Institution and subsequently appealing to the Social Security Court, rather than invoking the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. The court established that the Ombudsman lacks jurisdiction to intervene in matters where a comprehensive statutory adjudication and appeal mechanism is provided by the legislature for resolving social security contribution disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employer is obliged to approach the appropriate forum available under the Social Security Ordinance, 1965, rather than approaching the Provincial-Ombudsman?
  • Whether a complaint before the Provincial-Ombudsman is competent in the presence of statutory remedies available under Section 57 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Whether the Provincial-Ombudsman may take cognizance of a matter regarding social security contributions in the existence of a statutory remedy available to the employer?
  • Whether recommendations or orders of the Provincial-Ombudsman are liable to be implemented when passed without jurisdiction or by bypassing statutory remedies?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Qaisar Iqbal etc2017 LHC 3764 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-05Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary, Works And Communication And 52017 MLD 2095 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-01Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary to the Government vs Dr.2018 [M] C.L.R. 1587, 2017 LHC 3865 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-21
  intra court appealchange of cadreseniorityestoppelcivil servantconstitutional jurisdictionretrospective effect
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges a single-bench judgment that allowed writ petitions filed by doctors who sought regularization and seniority from an earlier date (2009) at par with a contract appointee group, after they had voluntarily opted to change their cadre from the General Cadre to the Teaching/Specialist Cadre under amended service rules in 2012. The core legal questions pertained to the maintainability of writ petitions by civil servants regarding appointments by transfer under Article 199, the application of the doctrine of estoppel against employees who accepted prospective terms and conditions placing them at the bottom of the seniority list, and whether a case of discrimination was made out. The Lahore High Court held that while the writ petitions were maintainable because appointments by transfer do not fall strictly within the terms and conditions barred by Article 212 of the Constitution, the learned Single Judge erred on merits in finding discrimination. The Court ruled that the respondents were bound by the express terms of their 2012 appointment letters making their induction prospective and placing them at the bottom of the seniority list, and were estopped from claiming retrospective benefits after voluntarily changing their cadre. The appeals were accordingly allowed and the writ petitions dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether writ petitions filed by civil servants regarding their appointment by transfer are barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether an employee who voluntarily opts for a change of cadre and accepts appointment terms placing them at the bottom of the seniority list is estopped from claiming retrospective seniority?
  • Whether the failure to count previous general cadre service towards teaching cadre seniority constitutes actionable discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether administrative rules or notifications can be given retrospective operation in the absence of explicit statutory authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through District Coordination Officer, Gujrat and others vs Malik Ghulam Sarwar Awan and others2017 YLR 182 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-19Read full judgment →
• Prime Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Knit Knot Pvt. Ltd. etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 172 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-22Read full judgment →
• Prime Commercial Bank Ltd vs Knit Knot Pvt. Ltd., etc2017 PLJ Lahore 172, 2017 P.C.T.L.R. 34 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-22Read full judgment →
• Present: Shehram Sarwar CH. Khadim Hussain and anothers vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 67 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-07Read full judgment →
• Pioneer Cement Limited vs The Government of the Punjab and others2017 PLC 199 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-11
  social security contributionwage ceilingcharging provisionstatutory interpretationconstitutional petitionvires of notificationemployer contribution
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged various government notifications that increased the wage ceiling for social security contributions, leading to demand notices for additional payments from the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the government could validly recover increased contributions based on notifications adjusting the definition of "employee" under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, without a corresponding amendment to the charging provision, Section 20, which fixed the maximum contribution limit. The Court held that for the period prior to the 2013 amendment, the notifications were ineffective for recovery purposes because Section 20 explicitly capped contributions, and the definition of "employee" under Section 2(8)(f) was not a charging provision. However, regarding the post-amendment period, the Court upheld the notification dated 12.8.2014, as the 2013 amendment to Section 20 successfully linked the contribution limit to the wage determinations made under Section 71. The key principle laid down is that a charging provision in a statute cannot be bypassed by administrative notifications unless the statute expressly authorizes such linkage.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government recover increased social security contributions by merely amending the definition of 'employee' without amending the charging provision of the statute?
  • Does a notification issued under Section 71 of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, automatically authorize the recovery of contributions exceeding the limits set in Section 20 prior to its amendment?
  • Is a demand notice for social security contributions valid if it relies on a notification issued after the relevant charging provision of the statute has been amended to link contribution limits to government wage determinations?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Haider Khan vs The State etc.2017 LHC 560 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-16
  criminal judgmentspeaking ordermandatory requirementsembezzlementremandevaluation of evidenceSection 367 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, which convicted the appellant for embezzlement under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the trial court's judgment satisfied the mandatory requirements of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the content and reasoning of a criminal judgment. The High Court held that the trial court's judgment was deficient, as it merely summarized prosecution evidence without evaluating it, failed to address the appellant's specific denials, and lacked a proper analysis of the points for determination. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a fresh judgment. The key principle laid down is that a criminal judgment must be a 'speaking order' that identifies points for determination, discusses evidence thoroughly, and provides reasoned adjudication. Failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a fatal illegality, not curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a criminal judgment that merely summarizes prosecution evidence without evaluating it satisfy the requirements of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a curable defect under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the essential elements required for a valid criminal judgment under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Pepsi-Cola International (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and othersPTCL 2017 CL. 80, 2017 PTD 636 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-19
  value of supplyvaluation committeefederal excise dutysales tax assessmentshow-cause noticerecovery proceedingsconstitutional petitionfiscal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged show-cause notices issued by the Inland Revenue Department, which sought to recover federal excise duty, sales tax, and income tax by adding advertising and marketing expenses incurred by bottlers to the value of concentrate sold by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the department could bypass the statutory Valuation Committee and directly initiate recovery proceedings under Section 14 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005, based on an alleged undervaluation of supply. The Court held that the determination of the "value of supply" is a distinct assessment process that must precede any recovery action. Because the department disputed the declared value, it was legally required to invoke the mechanism under Section 2(46)(e) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, to constitute a Valuation Committee. The Court ruled that the issuance of recovery notices without such prior assessment was incompetent and ultra vires. Consequently, the Court directed the constitution of a Valuation Committee to determine the correct value, holding the impugned recovery proceedings in abeyance pending this determination.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Inland Revenue Department initiate recovery proceedings under Section 14 of the Federal Excise Act 2005 without a prior assessment of the value of supply?
  • Is the constitution of a Valuation Committee under Section 2(46)(e) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 a mandatory prerequisite when the department disputes the declared value of supply?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition against a show-cause notice where the authority acts without jurisdiction?
  • Are assessment and recovery distinct legal processes under the Federal Excise Act 2005 and the Sales Tax Act 1990?
  Read full judgment →
• Pepsi-Cola International (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 MLD 1703 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-05Read full judgment →
• Pepsi-Cola International (Pvt.) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & OthersPTCL 2017 CL. 80 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-19Read full judgment →
• Pepsi-Cola International (Pvt) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 P.C.T.L.R. 1 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-24Read full judgment →
• Papla vs The State and another2017 YLR 1858 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-28
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRmedical evidenceocular testimonyacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies in the evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court identified fatal flaws, including an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, which suggested the story was a post-facto fabrication. Furthermore, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account, and the investigating officer's own testimony cast doubt on the reliability of the prosecution's version. The Court reaffirmed the principle that when prosecution evidence is disbelieved regarding co-accused, it cannot be safely relied upon against others without strong independent corroboration. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace, leading to the appellant's immediate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the medical evidence contradicts the ocular account provided by prosecution witnesses?
  • Is it safe to rely on prosecution evidence against an accused if the same evidence has been disbelieved regarding co-accused persons?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab, etc vs Arshad Javed, etc2017 PLJ Lahore 749 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-14Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. through Authorized Officer2017 PLC 238 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-16
  National Industrial Relations CommissionVoluntary Separation Schemeunfair labour practicejurisdiction of NIRCdefinition of workerestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition, along with connected matters, was filed by the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. assailing orders passed by the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission, which had dismissed the company's appeals against a Single Member's decision accepting the private respondents' petitions. The core legal question centered on whether the National Industrial Relations Commission had jurisdiction under the National Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 to entertain petitions challenging a Voluntary Separation Scheme filed by former employees who had opted for it and whose services had ceased. The Lahore High Court held that the Commission lacked jurisdiction as the private respondents did not qualify as workmen in relation to an industrial dispute under the statute, failed to substantiate any unfair labour practice, and were estopped from challenging the Voluntary Separation Scheme after voluntarily exercising their option. Consequently, the petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the original petitions filed before the Commission were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee who has opted for a Voluntary Separation Scheme can subsequently challenge the same before the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to entertain grievance petitions from persons whose services were terminated otherwise than as a result of an industrial dispute?
  • Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 survived the repeal of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can a former employee who is no longer in service maintain a petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission without establishing an unfair labour practice?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd vs Tajammul Hasnein etc.2017 LHC 288 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-16
  Voluntary Separation SchemeNIRC jurisdictionunfair labour practiceindustrial disputeworkman definitiongrievance petitionestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter involves constitutional petitions filed by Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited challenging orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission regarding the Voluntary Separation Scheme. The core legal question was whether the Commission had jurisdiction to entertain grievance petitions filed by former employees who had opted for the scheme, and whether those employees qualified as 'workmen' under the relevant labor laws. The Court held that the Commission lacked jurisdiction. The employees, having opted for the Voluntary Separation Scheme and been terminated, did not fall within the definition of 'workman' under the National Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, as their termination did not arise from an 'industrial dispute.' The Court established that an employee whose services are terminated pursuant to a voluntary scheme, absent an underlying industrial dispute, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission. Furthermore, employees who voluntarily opt for separation schemes are estopped from subsequently challenging the validity of those schemes before the Commission, particularly when they fail to establish specific acts of unfair labor practice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to hear a grievance petition from an employee who has voluntarily opted for a separation scheme?
  • Can an employee whose services were terminated pursuant to a voluntary separation scheme be considered a 'workman' under the National Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
  • Are the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 still operative following the repeal of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Is an employee who has voluntarily accepted a separation scheme estopped from challenging the scheme before the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Ordnance Factories through Manager Legal, Wah Cantt. and 32017 CLC 918 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-07Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airline and others vs Noreen Naz Butt2017 PLC (C.S.) 923 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-24
  Intra Court AppealMaster and Servantstatutory rulesreinstatementwrit jurisdictionmaintainabilitylachesalternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal was filed by Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) challenging a Single Judge's decision that reinstated the respondent into service. The respondent’s contract had not been extended in 2005, leading her to file a writ petition after a five-year delay. The appellants contended that the relationship was governed by non-statutory rules and that the writ petition was barred by laches and the availability of an alternate remedy. The High Court examined whether constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 could be invoked for service matters involving a corporation without statutory rules. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that in the absence of statutory rules, the relationship between PIA and its employees is governed by the principle of 'Master and Servant.' Consequently, a servant cannot be thrust upon an unwilling master through writ jurisdiction. The Court further noted that the respondent failed to exhaust alternate remedies. The appeal was accepted, and the impugned judgment was set aside, affirming that constitutional petitions are not maintainable for individual service grievances where no statutory rules are violated.

  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Football Federation vs The Government of Pakistan and others2017 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-03Read full judgment →
• Pakistan College of Law vs The University of Punjab, etc.2017 LHC 3129 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-10
  legal educationadmission standardscooperative federalismthird divisionuniversity regulationsprovincial autonomyrestitutionunjust enrichment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner law college challenged the University of the Punjab's refusal to register students holding a third division in F.A/F.Sc. or B.A/B.Sc. for the 3-year and 5-year LL.B. programs. The core legal questions involved whether such students are eligible for admission to the LL.B. program under the university's regulations, and whether the university's stricter eligibility threshold conflicts with the federal Pakistan Bar Council Legal Education Rules. The Lahore High Court held that the university's requirement of at least a second division for admission to equivalent bachelor's and master's programs applies to the LL.B. program and can validly coexist with federal rules under the constitutional principle of cooperative federalism. The court laid down the principle that provincial educational institutions are empowered to set higher and more robust standards of excellence than baseline federal standards, provided they do not fall below them, and ordered the petitioner college to refund the academic fees collected from ineligible students.

  Questions settled

  • Whether students holding a third division in F.A/F.Sc. or B.A/B.Sc. are entitled to admission in the LL.B. program at the University of the Punjab?
  • Can provincial universities set higher admission eligibility standards than the baseline standards prescribed under federal legal education rules?
  • How do federal and provincial legislative powers overlap regarding standards in higher education under the post-18th Amendment constitutional framework?
  • What is the remedy for students admitted unlawfully by an affiliated college due to the college's failure to adhere to university admission regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan College of Law vs The University of Punjab, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 1445 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-10
  legal educationadmission eligibilitycooperative federalismuniversity regulationsstatutory interpretationejusdem generisunjust enrichment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an affiliated law college challenging the University of the Punjab's refusal to register students holding a third division in F.A/F.Sc. or B.A/B.Sc. for the LL.B. (3 and 5 years) programs for the academic year 2016-2017. The core legal questions involved whether third-division holders were eligible for admission under the University's Admission Regulations and whether provincial admission regulations could co-exist with federal rules under the principle of cooperative federalism. The Lahore High Court held that the University's regulations validly excluded third-division holders from bachelor's and master's equivalent programs, including LL.B., and that provincial educational standards can coexist with federal laws by setting higher or supplemental standards without lowering federal baselines. The court dismissed the petition, upheld the University's refusal to register the ineligible students, and ordered the petitioner college to refund the academic fees collected from them to prevent unjust enrichment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether students holding a third division in intermediate or graduation are eligible for admission to the LL.B. program at the University of the Punjab?
  • How do federal legislative competence and provincial legislative powers on education interact under the principle of cooperative federalism?
  • Can a provincial university set admission criteria that are stricter than the baseline standards established by federal legal education rules?
  • What is the extent and scope of the term equivalent program under university admission regulations using the canon of ejusdem generis?
  Read full judgment →
• Pak Telecom Mobile Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 LHC 3221, 2017 PTD 2296 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-05Read full judgment →
• Pak Telecom Mobile Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 [M] C.L.R. 1487 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-04Read full judgment →
• Pak Telecom Mobile Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & others2017 LHC 3221 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-05Read full judgment →
• Packages Limited vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, etc2017 PLJ Lahore 462, 2017 LHC 1113 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-09
  labour lawmisconductnatural justiceconstitutional jurisdictionconcurrent findingsinquiry proceedingswrongful dismissalejusdem generis
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the reinstatement of an employee dismissed by the petitioner-factory for the alleged theft of a colleague's motorcycle. The core legal questions concerned whether the inquiry proceedings were conducted fairly and whether the alleged theft constituted misconduct under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Court held that the dismissal was unjustified, noting that the inquiry officer acted as both prosecutor and judge, violating principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the Court determined that the theft of a private motorcycle did not constitute misconduct related to the employer's business or property, as required by the Ordinance. Additionally, the Court emphasized that concurrent findings of fact by the Labour Court and Tribunal could not be interfered with under limited constitutional jurisdiction, especially where no jurisdictional error was demonstrated. The judgment reaffirms that misconduct must be strictly construed within the statutory framework and that disciplinary inquiries must adhere to principles of impartiality and fairness.

  Questions settled

  • Does the theft of a colleague's personal property within factory premises constitute misconduct connected to the employer's business under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Can an inquiry officer act as both the prosecutor and the judge in a disciplinary proceeding against an employee?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by a Labour Court and an Appellate Tribunal subject to interference by the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Must the phrase 'acts subversive of discipline' in the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 be construed ejusdem generis with preceding terms like 'riotous or disorderly behavior'?
  Read full judgment →
• Packages Limited through Factory Manager_ Personnel Manager vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and another2017 PLC 191 · Lahore High Court · 2011-02-09
  constitutional petitionmisconductindustrial relationsejusdem generislabour lawconcurrent findingsinquiry proceedingswrongful dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which reinstated a workman dismissed for the alleged theft of a colleague's motorcycle from the factory premises. The core legal questions concerned whether the inquiry proceedings were fair, whether the alleged theft constituted misconduct under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and whether the High Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the inquiry was biased as the Inquiry Officer acted as both prosecutor and judge. Furthermore, the Court held that the theft of a private motorcycle did not constitute misconduct under the Ordinance, as it lacked connection to the employer's business or property. Additionally, the phrase 'acts subversive of discipline' must be construed ejusdem generis with 'riotous or disorderly behavior.' The Court affirmed that in its constitutional jurisdiction, it cannot re-appraise evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact absent jurisdictional error or material irregularity. The dismissal of the employee was thus found to be unjustified.

  Questions settled

  • Does the theft of a private motorcycle from factory premises constitute misconduct under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can an Inquiry Officer act as both the prosecutor and the judge in domestic disciplinary proceedings?
  • How should the phrase 'acts subversive of discipline' in the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 be interpreted?
  • Is the High Court empowered to re-appraise evidence in constitutional jurisdiction when faced with concurrent findings of fact by Labour Courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Orient Power Company Pvt. Ltd. etc. vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan etc.2021 [M] C L R 296, 2017 LHC 2135 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-01Read full judgment →
• Obaidullah Sajid vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 737 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-17
  pre-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustmisappropriationnon-prosecutionrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 973/16 registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Depalpur, District Okara, concerning the alleged misappropriation of a laptop and an EVO device. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner has made out a case for the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, given the specific allegations and the requirement for custodial recovery. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that sufficient incriminating material existed on record connecting the petitioner to the offense, that the petitioner failed to establish mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police, and that recovery of the misappropriated items remained outstanding. The key principles laid down are that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy intended for innocent persons and will not be extended where prima facie material connects the accused to the crime and custodial investigation or recovery is required.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the accused fails to appear and prosecution shows sufficient material connecting him to the offense?
  • Is custodial interrogation and recovery of misappropriated property a valid ground to decline pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether lack of plausible grounds establishing mala fide of the complainant bars the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• N/A vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 790 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-20
  murderdeath sentencemitigating circumstancesocular evidencemedical evidencecriminal appeallife imprisonmentmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, Muhammad Faazil. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through ocular and medical evidence, and whether the sentence of death was appropriate given the evidentiary findings regarding motive and the recovery of the crime weapon. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through credible ocular testimony that remained consistent and was corroborated by medical evidence. However, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and that the evidence regarding the recovery of the crime weapon was unreliable. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Court held that the absence of proof regarding motive and the doubtful recovery constituted mitigating circumstances. The Court set aside the death sentence, altering it to imprisonment for life, and answered the Murder Reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive constitute a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing in a murder case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence when the recovery of the crime weapon is found to be doubtful?
  • Is the death sentence mandatory in a murder case where the prosecution fails to prove the motive?
  • Does the lack of defensive injuries on the deceased support the prosecution's version of the incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Ul Ain Shah vs Adnan Ali Shah and another2017 LHC 2111 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-03Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and two others vs Falak Sher2017 LHC 393 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-13Read full judgment →
• Noor Din and another vs Member (Judicial-VI), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others2017 PLJ Lahore 84 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Noor Afzal vs State, etc.PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 78 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-14
  post-arrest bailabductionsexual abuseprohibitory clausewomen traffickingcriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Noor Afzal, who was accused along with his accomplices of abducting a woman named Qammer Shehnaz for sexual abuse, with Section 376 (ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code subsequently added during the investigation. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in light of his advanced age and the completion of the investigation, despite being implicated in a heinous gang operation involving the abduction and trafficking of women. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, reasoning that the prima facie allegations fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that mere old age does not constitute a sufficient ground for granting bail in such grave offences. The court accordingly dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does old age alone constitute a sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail in heinous offences?
  • Whether an accused involved in a gang abducting and selling women is entitled to bail when the investigation is complete?
  • Do offences involving the abduction and sexual abuse of women fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Afzal vs State and othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 78, 2017 P Cr. L J 712 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-14
  post-arrest bailabductionsexual abuseprohibitory clausehuman traffickingcriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition seeks post-arrest bail on behalf of the petitioner, Noor Afzal, who is implicated along with his co-accused in the abduction and sexual abuse of a victim, with Section 376(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code subsequently added during the investigation. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering his old age, the recovery of the victim, and the completion of the investigation against him. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is part of a gang involved in abducting and selling women, an offence that prima facie falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that mere old age is insufficient to grant bail in such heinous crimes. The court established the principle that involvement in human trafficking and abduction rings operating against vulnerable women precludes the grant of post-arrest bail, dismissing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether old age alone constitutes a sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail in heinous offences?
  • Does an offence involving the abduction and selling of women fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail merely because the victim has been recovered and the investigation is complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs Secretary to the Government of Punjab and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 856 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-27
  constitutional petitiondepartmental appealmaster and servantdismissal from servicePEEDA Actalternative statutory remedywrit petition converted to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging an order imposing a major penalty of dismissal from service under Section 6 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act 2006. The primary legal question addressed was whether a constitutional petition can be entertained when the aggrieved person has bypassed the statutory remedy of a departmental appeal available under Section 16 of the said Act. The Court held that since the constitutional petition was filed within the thirty-day limitation period prescribed for filing a departmental appeal, the writ petition should be treated as a departmental appeal for all practical purposes. The key principle laid down is that a writ petition filed within the limitation period for an appeal can be converted and transmitted as a departmental appeal to the competent appellate authority to ensure exhaustion of statutory remedies without prejudice to the litigant's rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition filed against an order of dismissal within the period prescribed for a departmental appeal can be treated as a departmental appeal?
  • Does the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act 2006 provide an adequate alternative statutory remedy of appeal that must be exhausted?
  • Can a High Court convert a writ petition into a departmental appeal and remit it to the competent appellate authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Nib Bank Limited vs M/s. Pasban Agro Chemicals Company and others2017 PLJ Lahore 535, 2017 P.C.T.L.R. 286 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-27Read full judgment →
• Nib Bank Limited vs M/s Pasban Agro Chemicals Company & others2017 LHC 1083 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
• Niaz alias Niazi alias Jumma vs The State2017 MLD 1147 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-13
  criminal appealtest identification paradebenefit of doubtsupplementary statementocular evidenceballistic reportanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant by an Anti-Terrorism Court for murder and terrorism-related offences. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's identity and culpability beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliance on a supplementary statement to nominate the accused and the validity of the subsequent test identification parade. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with doubt: the supplementary statement lacked a credible source, the circumstances of the appellant's arrest by an eye-witness were implausible, and the identification parade failed to comply with established legal procedures, thereby losing its evidentiary value. Furthermore, the Court determined that medical and ballistic evidence, while corroborative, could not independently establish the appellant's identity when the primary ocular evidence was unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a test identification parade retain evidentiary value if the witness who arrested the accused is also the one who identifies them during the parade?
  • Can medical and ballistic evidence sustain a conviction when the primary ocular evidence is found to be unreliable?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to follow the prescribed procedure for a test identification parade under the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the accused is nominated solely through a supplementary statement without a disclosed source of information?
  Read full judgment →
• Nestle Pakistan Ltd. and others vs Federal Board of Revenue and others2017 PTD 686 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-09
  Audit PolicyRandom BallotTax AuditDiscretionary PowersStructuring DiscretionSelf-Executing ProvisionsFair TrialAdministrative ProceedingsQuasi-Judicial ProceedingsFederal Board of Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  The Lahore High Court adjudicated writ petitions challenging the Federal Board of Revenue's (FBR) selection for audit through Random Ballot under the Audit Policy, 2015. The primary legal questions concerned whether FBR could exercise audit selection powers without framing specific rules under relevant statutes and if the Audit Policy adequately structured its discretion. The Court held that the statutory provisions for audit selection (Section 214C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001; Section 72B of Sales Tax Act, 1990; Section 42B of Federal Excise Act, 2005) are self-executing, meaning their operation is not contingent on further rules. However, the Court emphasized that FBR's discretionary powers must be structured to ensure just, fair, and transparent exercise, in line with the "doctrine of structuring discretion." The Audit Policy, 2015, was found deficient, particularly in its focus on revenue generation, lack of clear audit procedures, and absence of grievance redressal mechanisms. The Court directed FBR to rectify these defects, complete pending audits by 30.06.2017 (failing which selection would be deemed dropped), and ensure that adjudication proceedings are conducted by a different taxation officer than the audit officer to maintain separation of administrative and quasi-judicial functions, thereby upholding the right to a fair trial.

  Read full judgment →
• Nestle Pakistan Limited etc. vs The Federal Board of Revenue etc.PTCL 2017 CL. 412 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-09Read full judgment →
• Nestle Pakistan Limited etc. vs Federal Board of Revenue through its2017 LHC 2 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nestle Pakistan Limited etc vs The Federal Board of Revenue etcPTCL 2017 CL. 412, 2017 LHC 92 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-09Read full judgment →
• Nazir Rice Mills (Pvt.) Limited vs Habib Metropolitan Bank Limited2017 CLD 186 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-06Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and another2017 PTD 1402 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-27Read full judgment →
• Nazir Abbas through L.Rs. vs Ghulam Muhammad through L.Rs.2017 CLC 996 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-09
  specific performanceoral agreement to sellburden of proofonus probandiattestation of documentsQanun-e-Shahadatcivil revisionhandwriting expert
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to sell property. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff successfully proved the existence of the oral agreement and the validity of a disputed receipt (Mark-A) regarding sale consideration. The Lahore High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the appellate court's decree and restoring the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the oral agreement and the execution of the receipt. The Court established that a party asserting a fact in the affirmative bears the onus probandi and must prove it through cogent evidence, not merely by highlighting weaknesses in the adversary's case. Furthermore, pleadings must specifically state material facts, such as the date and venue of an oral transaction. Additionally, documents concerning financial obligations require attestation by two witnesses under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and where execution is denied, the beneficiary must seek expert verification of signatures to satisfy the burden of proof.

  Questions settled

  • Does an oral agreement to sell property require specific pleadings regarding the date, time, and venue of the transaction to be provable?
  • Is a document pertaining to financial obligations admissible if it lacks the attestation of two witnesses as required by the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Where the executant of a document denies its execution, is the beneficiary legally obligated to seek expert verification of the signatures?
  • Can a court decree a suit based on the weaknesses of the defendant's evidence rather than the strength of the plaintiff's affirmative evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad Waraich and 7 others vs Zonal Head, State Life2017 PLC (C.S.) 685 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-18
  sacked employeesreinstatementState Life Insurance Corporationarea managernon-obstante clausestatutory interpretationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition, along with connected petitions, was filed by former Area Managers of the State Life Insurance Corporation claiming reinstatement under the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009 and the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010. The core legal questions involved the interpretation and applicability of the Ordinance and Act to employees appointed between November 1, 1993, and November 30, 1996, and terminated between November 1, 1996, and October 12, 1999, and whether the petitioners' appointments as Area Managers constituted direct appointments or promotions from commission-based roles. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners fulfilled the statutory criteria as sacked employees, were directly appointed rather than promoted, and were entitled to reinstatement notwithstanding termination for poor performance due to the overriding non-obstante clauses in the legislation. The court established that the statutory protections apply equally to eligible terminated employees regardless of cause of termination and directed the respondent Corporation to process their reinstatement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees appointed between November 1, 1993 and November 30, 1996 and terminated within the specified cut-off dates are entitled to reinstatement under the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010?
  • Does the termination of an employee for poor performance exclude them from the benefit of reinstatement under the non-obstante provisions of the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010?
  • Whether the appointment of Area Managers following previous commission-based roles constitutes a direct appointment or a promotion for the purposes of the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and 2 others vs The State2017 MLD 360 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-21
  capital punishmentocular evidencecriminal appealbenefit of doubtmurderappreciation of evidenceimprobability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of three appellants for the murder of a sixteen-year-old boy. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, motivated by a prior murder committed by the deceased's father, intercepted the deceased, dragged him from a room in the complainant's house to a nearby field, and shot him. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, while acquitting them of house trespass charges. The core legal question was whether the prosecution's narrative, relying on ocular testimony and forensic evidence, was sufficient to sustain a capital conviction despite significant improbabilities in the sequence of events. The Court held that the prosecution's story regarding the pursuit, the forcible entry, and the dragging of the deceased was inherently improbable and unsupported by physical evidence. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer's admissions cast doubt on the presence of witnesses. The Court emphasized that in cases of capital punishment, any reasonable doubt or suspicious circumstance entitles the accused to acquittal. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and declined to confirm the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution's narrative of the occurrence is inherently improbable?
  • Does the acquittal of an accused on a charge of house trespass undermine the credibility of the prosecution's version of events regarding the murder?
  • Is the benefit of doubt available to an accused when the prosecution's evidence is fraught with inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed AHMADs vs Muhammad Bashir and othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 110 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-01
  criminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubtocular evidenceforensic evidenceprivate complaintdeath sentenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the appellant was sentenced to death by the trial court for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the ocular account and the forensic evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court observed that the appellant was not named in the initial FIR, the eye-witnesses' presence at the scene was highly doubtful given their distant residences, and the complainant made dishonest improvements to his testimony. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was deemed inconsequential because the crime empties were sent to the forensic laboratory after the appellant's arrest. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, granting the appellant the benefit of doubt. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits, and any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a weapon lose its evidentiary value if the crime empties are sent to the forensic laboratory after the accused's arrest?
  • Is the testimony of a witness reliable when they have made dishonest improvements to their statement to strengthen the prosecution's case?
  • Does the failure to name an accused in the initial FIR, despite prior acquaintance, render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the motive and the presence of eye-witnesses at the scene of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Nausher & another vs State & anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 380 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-05
  Qatl-i-Amdcriminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubtsupplementary statementimprovements in ocular accountmedical evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the conviction of the appellants for the double murder of a couple over a land dispute. The core legal questions involved the reliability of an eyewitness whose stance shifted dramatically between the First Information Report, a supplementary statement, and a private complaint, as well as the admissibility of such supplementary statements and the sufficiency of corroborative evidence. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the material improvements and contradictions in the ocular account—aimed at aligning with medical evidence—alongside the absence of crime scene casings and doubtful eyewitness presence, rendered the convictions unsafe. The key legal principles laid down include that a supplementary statement essentially governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be read in extension or continuation of the First Information Report to fill gaps, and material improvements that change the complexion of the prosecution case erode the credibility of witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a supplementary statement made by a complainant can be read in evidence in extension or continuation of the First Information Report?
  • Can a witness who materially deviates from their previous statement regarding the core complexion of the case be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure to recover crime casings from the spot weaken the prosecution's case regarding the use of specific firearms?
  • Whether convictions for capital punishment can be sustained when the prosecution case is fraught with irreconcilable contradictions and doubtful eyewitness presence?
  Read full judgment →
• National Transmission and Dispatch Company vs Trust Investment Bank2017 MLD 1304, 2017 LHC 217 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-01Read full judgment →
• National Transmission and Dispatch Company Limited (NTDC) through Dul Authorized Legal Adviso vs Trust Investment Bank Ltd2017 MLD 1304 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-01Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Nawa Media Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. & another2017 [M] C.L.R. 1730 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-25Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Al-Azhar Textile Mills Limited and 9 others2017 CLD 1229 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-09Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Iftikhar Rasool Anjum and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 453 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-16
  Intra Court Appealpensionary benefitsstatutory bodyvested rightsestoppellachescorporate veilEOAB contributionsbank nationalization
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal (ICA) arose from a consolidated judgment of a Single Judge who directed the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) to release pensionary benefits to retired employees according to Circular No. 228 dated 26.12.1977. The core legal dispute centered on whether the 1977 Circular, which linked bank pensions to Federal Government rates (70% of average emoluments), remained a binding statutory instrument or was validly superseded by Circular No. 37/1999, which reduced the pension rate to 33%. The court examined the legislative history of the NBP Ordinance 1949 and the Banks Nationalization Act 1974, alongside the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act 1976 (EOAB Act) in a connected matter regarding Abasyn University. The court held that the 1977 Circular created vested rights for employees who opted for the scheme. Furthermore, regarding the EOAB Act, the court clarified that an entity created by a specific statute qualifies as a 'statutory body' under Section 47(f), exempting it from EOAB contributions. The court dismissed the bank's appeals, affirming the retirees' entitlement to the higher pension rates.

  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Chenab Limited and others2017 CLD 1539 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-14Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Al-Azhar Textile Mills Ltd. & others2017 [M] C.L.R. 710 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-09Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Al-Azhar Textile Mills Ltd & others2017 LHC 1920 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-09Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan through President National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi and 2 others vs Iftikhar Rasool Anjum and others2017 PLD Supreme Court 142, 2017 P.S.C. 559, 2017 PLJ Lahore 313 · Lahore High Court
  pension benefitsstatutory instrumentnationalized bankintra court appeallachesexecutive circularterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby constitutional petitions filed by retired employees of the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) were allowed, directing the NBP to release pension benefits in accordance with Instruction Circular No. 228(C) dated 26.12.1977. The core legal questions involved the statutory nature of the 1977 Circular, whether a subsequent executive circular issued in 1999 by the NBP Board reducing pension rates could override the statutory pension scheme, and whether the petitions suffered from laches. The court held that the 1977 Circular, having been issued pursuant to the rule-making powers of the Federal Government under Section 20 of the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, is a statutory instrument that cannot be altered, rescinded, or overridden by a non-statutory executive circular of the NBP Board. Furthermore, the court held that the claims did not suffer from laches because the employees continuously agitated the matter and engaged with the bank authorities. The appeals were consequently dismissed, upholding the pensioners' rights under the statutory 1977 scheme.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Instruction Circular No. 228(C) dated 26.12.1977 is a statutory instrument having the backing of law?
  • Whether the Board of Directors of the National Bank of Pakistan is competent to alter or reduce statutory pension rights through a non-statutory executive circular?
  • Does a claim regarding pension and salary grievances suffer from laches when the matter is continuously under active consideration and correspondence between the employees and the bank?
  • Can a non-statutory instrument override or repeal a statutory rule or notification issued by the Federal Government?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Nasrullah alias Nasru (2) The State vs (1) The State (2) Nasrullah alias2017 LHC 2011 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-18
  murderdeath sentenceocular accountmotivebenefit of the doubtacquittalfirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference challenge the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Nasrullah alias Nasru, handed down by the trial court for the double murder of Siddiq Akbar and Bilqees Shahzad. The prosecution case was founded on an eyewitness account and a motive involving an earlier criminal case regarding obnoxious calls made to the female deceased. Upon evaluating the evidence, the Lahore High Court noted significant improbabilities regarding the natural presence and conduct of the alleged eyewitnesses, inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the ocular account regarding the firearm injuries, absence of crime scene weapon casings, and doubts surrounding the weapon recovery and independent corroboration. Consequently, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of crime scene weapon casings weaken the evidentiary value of a recovered weapon?
  • Can a conviction for a capital crime be sustained solely on an ocular account that runs contrary to the natural order of events and medical evidence?
  • Whether inconsistencies between the post-mortem findings and the First Information Report regarding firearm entry wounds create reasonable doubt in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasreen Adrees, etc. vs Deputy District Officer, etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 1008 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-01Read full judgment →
• Nasra Malik vs Muhammad Nawaz and 6 others2017 YLR 304 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-19Read full judgment →
• Nasir Murtaza vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 410 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-02
  pre-arrest bailmala fidedelayed FIRmedical board reportcriminal investigationcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 199 dated 26.10.2016, registered at Police Station Thatha Sadiqabad, District Khanewal, for offences under Sections 337-A(iii) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of assaulting the complainant's father, causing a nasal bone fracture. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case. Upon review, the Court noted a four-day delay in reporting the incident without a plausible explanation. Furthermore, the Court highlighted a report from the District Standing Medical Board, which questioned the initial medical opinion regarding the injury, suggesting the possibility of fabrication. The Court observed that no weapon was used or required for recovery, and the petitioner had already joined the investigation. Finding the petitioner's implication tainted by mala fide and determining that his physical custody was unnecessary for investigation, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed where the prosecution's case appears doubtful, investigation is complete, and mala fides are evident.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR provide grounds for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a conflict between initial medical reports and a subsequent medical board opinion regarding the nature of an injury influence the grant of bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the accused has already joined the investigation and no further physical custody is required?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Malik vs Muhammad Nawaz, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 461 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-19Read full judgment →
• Nasir Iftikhar vs Naseer Ahmad2017 PLJ Lahore 590, 2017 LHC 1004 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-07Read full judgment →
• Nasir Gulzar vs Mst. Nabeela Gulzar and 3 others2017 YLR 1636 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-26Read full judgment →
• Nasir and 3 others vs The State and another2017 LHC 3542 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-04
  pre-arrest bailbail before arrestmala fidecommon intentionvicarious liabilitytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of offences under Sections 337A(i), 337A(ii), 337F(i), 337F(v), 337L(2), 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioners have made out a case for the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail, particularly regarding allegations supported by medical certificates and the presence of mala fide. The Lahore High Court held that petitioners attributed with specific roles and injuries falling under non-bailable sections without establishing mala fide on the part of the complainant or police are not entitled to pre-arrest bail, while petitioners assigned general roles without specific non-bailable injuries attributed to them, who have joined the investigation, are entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted without showing mala fide on the part of the complainant or police, and tentative assessment of roles may distinguish the cases of co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted without establishing mala fide on the part of the complainant or the local police?
  • Does a joint role without specific attribution of non-bailable injuries justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of bail before arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir alias Nasrullah vs The State2017 MLD 532 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-26
  murderdeath penaltysentence mitigationocular evidencecriminal appealproportionality of sentencehomicide
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of a thirteen-year-old boy. The prosecution alleged that the appellant stabbed the victim to death following a dispute over the refusal of credit at a grocery shop. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and imposed the death penalty. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account and the appropriateness of the death sentence given the circumstances. The High Court found the ocular evidence of the father and another witness consistent, straightforward, and credible, thereby upholding the conviction. However, regarding the sentence, the Court observed that the extreme violence inflicted was disproportionate to the alleged motive of a minor dispute over credit. Furthermore, the Court noted that the immediate circumstances preceding the attack remained unclear. Consequently, the Court held that the death penalty was not warranted and exercised its discretion to convert the sentence to imprisonment for life, emphasizing that while the conviction was sound, the extreme penalty required greater justification.

  Questions settled

  • Can the death penalty be commuted to life imprisonment when the motive for the crime is disproportionate to the violence inflicted?
  • Is the testimony of a father regarding the murder of his son considered reliable if consistent with medical evidence?
  • Does the absence of clarity regarding the immediate events preceding a murder justify the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir alias Nasiree vs The State2017 YLR 1328 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-08
  murder referencedeath sentence conversionmitigating circumstanceunproved motiveinjured witnessocular accountabscondencepost-arrest bailcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Nasir alias Nasiree, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentencing him to death, alongside convictions under sections 324, 148, and 149. The prosecution case was founded on an ocular account by eyewitnesses, including an injured witness, alleging that the appellant and his co-accused fired at the victims during a nocturnal incident. The core legal questions involved whether the eyewitness testimony was reliable despite minor discrepancies in the seat of injury, whether unproved motive constituted a mitigating circumstance, and whether abscondence corroborated the prosecution's case. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitness and medical evidence sufficiently established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and noting that a single fire-shot was attributed without repetition, the Court held these factors as mitigating circumstances warranting the reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that while unproved motive is not fatal to a conviction, it serves as a strong mitigating circumstance to justify the substitution of the death penalty with life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies regarding the exact seat of injury in an ocular account are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive serve as a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused for a long period act as a strong piece of corroborative evidence when considered alongside direct testimony?
  • Is the testimony of an injured eyewitness sufficient to maintain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasim Bashir and 8 others vs Nazir Ahmad and others2017 CLC 1348 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-21Read full judgment →
• Naseer Muhammad vs Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for Mines, Sargoda Region and another2017 PLC 31 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-23
  workmen's compensationdefinition of minegypsum quarryworkman statusjurisdiction of commissioneralternative remedyopen pit mine
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner challenged an order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, which awarded compensation to the Respondent for injuries sustained while working at a gypsum quarry. The Petitioner contended that a gypsum quarry does not constitute a "mine" under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and therefore, the Respondent did not qualify as a "workman" under the Act, rendering the Commissioner's order without jurisdiction. The Respondent argued that the petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative appellate remedy under the Act and the fact that the Petitioner failed to raise these objections before the Commissioner. The Court, however, decided to entertain the petition on merits to prevent injustice, given the long pendency of the matter. Upon review, the Court held that a quarry is an open pit mine, which falls within the definition of a "mine" under the Mines Act, 1923. Consequently, the Respondent was deemed a workman, the Commissioner had jurisdiction, and the impugned order was upheld, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a gypsum quarry fall within the definition of a mine under the Mines Act, 1923?
  • Is a person working in a gypsum quarry considered a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?
  • Can a High Court entertain a constitutional petition on merits despite the availability of an alternative appellate remedy if the matter has been pending for a significant duration?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 818 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-23
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausedelay in FIRrecovery of moneypenal section
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically regarding the delay in FIR registration, the nature of the offence, and the availability of civil remedies. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that Section 489-F is a penal provision and not a mechanism for debt recovery, for which civil remedies under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 exist. Furthermore, the significant delay in lodging the FIR and the lack of progress in the trial, combined with the petitioner's status as a non-convict, warranted the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 intended to be used as a mechanism for the recovery of disputed money?
  • Can bail be granted where there is an unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR and the trial has not progressed?
  Read full judgment →
• Naghma Rani vs Additional District Judge, Gujrat etc2017 LHC 3250 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-27Read full judgment →
• Naeem Tufail vs Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd. through Chairman and another2017 CLD 1122, 2017 MLD 1369 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-30Read full judgment →
• Naeem Shahzad vs The State and others2017 P Cr. L J 1516 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-21
  emigration fraudconfessional statementplea of guiltyconviction on confessionretracted confessionvoluntary confessionfirst offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, passed by the trial court following a voluntary confessional statement and a compromise with the complainant. The core legal question was whether a voluntary and true judicial confession can form the sole basis for recording a conviction without corroboration. The Lahore High Court held that a judicial confession, once found to be voluntary, true, and confidence-inspiring, can validly form the sole basis for a conviction, even if retracted or made in the context of a plea bargain, and that no corroboration is strictly required. The court affirmed the conviction while maintaining the lenient sentence of imprisonment already undergone, given that the appellant was a first offender and had made restitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a judicial confession can form the sole basis for the conviction of an accused?
  • Does a voluntary confessional statement require corroboration before it can be acted upon by a trial court?
  • Is a confession rendered invalid if the accused subsequently seeks leniency or attempts to retract it?
  Read full judgment →
• Naeem Abbas vs Government of Punjab through Secretary and 4 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 404 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-30
  promotion rescissionnatural justiceaudi alteram partemservice matterwrit jurisdictionfitness for promotiondisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the rescission of the petitioner’s promotion from Inspector to Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) by the Police Department. The core legal questions concern whether the rescission of a promotion order without prior notice violates the principles of natural justice, and whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter despite the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court held that the impugned notification rescinding the promotion was illegal and without lawful authority. It established that the question of fitness for promotion falls outside the scope of terms and conditions of service barred by Article 212. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the principle of audi alteram partem mandates that a civil servant cannot be reverted or have their promotion rescinded without being provided an opportunity of defense. Additionally, it ruled that the mere issuance of show-cause notices, absent actual punishment or disciplinary findings, does not legally justify the deferment or cancellation of a promotion. The petition was consequently allowed, and the impugned notification was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to hear a service matter concerning the fitness of a civil servant for promotion?
  • Can a promotion order be rescinded without issuing a show-cause notice to the affected civil servant?
  • Does the mere issuance of show-cause notices constitute a valid legal ground to defer or cancel a civil servant's promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Yousaf vs Sara Nadeem and 3 others2017 MLD 876 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-19Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Tariq vs Full Board, Board of Revenue (Members Judicial-v &2017 MLD 1947 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-22Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Javed vs Justice of Peace/A.S.J., Dunyapur, District Lodhran2017 PLJ Lahore 673 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-09Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Amjad vs State & anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 256 · Lahore High Court · 2016-08-31
  post-arrest bailDrugs Actfurther inquiryprohibitory clausespurious medicinesbail bond
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Nadeem Amjad, sought post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 123 dated 26.7.2016, registered under Sections 23 and 27 of the Drugs Act, 1976, regarding the possession of spurious medicines at a pharmacy in Multan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offense and the evidence collected during the investigation. The Court observed that the alleged offense carried a maximum punishment of five years, thereby falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted that the samples of the recovered medicines were found to be of standard quality by the Government Analyst, and the investigation failed to establish the petitioner's ownership of the shop or that the relevant drug license was issued in his name. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's guilt required further inquiry and granted bail, emphasizing that the determination of his status remains a matter for the trial court to decide after recording evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offense punishable by up to five years imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a positive report from a Government Analyst regarding the quality of medicines a valid ground for granting bail in a case involving alleged spurious drugs?
  • Should bail be granted when the investigation fails to establish the petitioner's ownership of the premises where the alleged offense occurred?
  Read full judgment →
• Nabid Baig vs Chairman Punjab Publc Service Commission and 5 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 238 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-24
  age relaxationservice rulesconstitutional petitionpublic employmentpolicy matterdiscriminationfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a direction to the Punjab Public Service Commission to grant age relaxation to the petitioner for the post of Deputy Director Technical (BPS-18) in the Anti-Corruption Establishment Department. The petitioner challenged the minimum age limit of 35 years as discriminatory and requested the court to order an amendment to the service rules to lower the age requirement. The core legal question was whether the court could interfere with the government's policy regarding age eligibility criteria for public employment and whether such criteria violated the petitioner's fundamental rights. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the fixation of age limits is a policy matter within the prerogative of the competent authority and that the court should not interfere unless there is a gross violation of fundamental rights. The Court affirmed that age relaxation is not a vested right and that the petitioner failed to establish discrimination, as the condition applied uniformly to all candidates.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court direct the government to amend service rules regarding age eligibility for a public post?
  • Is age relaxation for public employment a vested right of a candidate?
  • Does the fixation of a minimum age limit for a public post constitute discrimination if it applies uniformly to all candidates?
  • Should courts interfere with government policy regarding the framing of service rules for public appointments?
  Read full judgment →
• Nabeel Akhtar Chaudhry and others vs Lahore Development Authority2017 CLC 561 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-02Read full judgment →
• NAB through D.G., NAB, Lahore vs Judge Accountability Court, etc.2017 MLD 1213, 2017 PLJ Lahore 311, K.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 75 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-16Read full judgment →
• NAB through D.G. NAB Lahore vs Judge Accountability Court, etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 311 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-16Read full judgment →
• NAB through D.G. NAB Lahore vs Judge Accountability Court and others2017 MLD 1213 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-16Read full judgment →
• M/s. Tanveer Spinning & Weaving Mills vs Tariq Saeed, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 510 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-20Read full judgment →
• M/s. Tanveer Spinning & Weaving Mills vs Tariq Saeed etc2017 PLJ Lahore 655 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-20Read full judgment →
• M/s. Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Province of Punjab, etc.2017 LHC 3259 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
• M/s. Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Ltd vs Province of Punjab, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 1746 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
• M/s. Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Ltd vs Province of Punjab & 5 Others2018 CLC 733, 2017 [M] C.L.R. 1746, 2017 LHC 3259, 2018 PLJ Lahore 194, 2018 PTD 75, PTCL 2018 CL. 474 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sixon Pakistan Private Limited vs Ghulam Fareed Zahid2017 PLJ Lahore 487 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-13Read full judgment →
• M/s. Shandar Vegetable & Ghee Mills through Chief Executive vs Learned2017 PLJ Lahore 216 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →