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.

• Miss Zaibunisa Khan and others vs The University of Health Sciences2017 MLD 617 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-09Read full judgment →
• Mirza Khan ASI & others vs State and others2017 PLJ Lahore 765 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-06Read full judgment →
• Mir Abdul Razzaq vs D.C.O., Gujrat2017 PLD Lahore 147 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-21Read full judgment →
• Mian Zaheer Ahmad vs Muhammad Sabir and others2017 PLJ Lahore 709, 2017 LHC 1158 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-31Read full judgment →
• Mian Waqar-Ud-Din and 3 others vs Messrs United Industries Limited2017 CLD 696 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-02
  winding up petitionjust and equitableshareholder deadlockCompanies Ordinance 1984share buy-outoppression and mismanagementcorporate governancevaluation of shares
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under sections 305, 309, and 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, sought the winding up of a public limited company, alleging shareholder deadlock, mismanagement, and oppression. The core legal question was whether the company should be wound up on 'just and equitable' grounds or if an alternative remedy, such as a share buy-out, was appropriate. The court held that the company remained a viable, profit-making entity, and the alleged deadlock stemmed from personal disputes rather than an operational impasse. Consequently, the court dismissed the winding-up petition, ruling that winding up is a discretionary remedy not to be granted mechanically. Instead, invoking its powers under section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, the court ordered a mandatory buy-out of the petitioners' shares by the respondents based on a court-appointed auditor's valuation. The judgment establishes that courts should prefer remedial measures, such as share buy-outs, over winding up when the company is functional, and that internal management disputes do not justify dissolution unless they fundamentally impair the company's viability or demonstrate a lack of probity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a company should be wound up on 'just and equitable' grounds solely due to a deadlock between shareholders?
  • Can the court order a mandatory share buy-out under section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, as an alternative to winding up?
  • Does the transfer of shares in a company require prior approval by the board of directors to be valid?
  • Is a winding up order a matter of right for a shareholder upon proof of internal management disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Touseef vs District Police Officer and 2 others2017 P Cr. L J 1140 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-01
  Intra-Court Appealmaintainabilitycustodial deathregistration of FIRaudi alteram partemEx-officio Justice of PeaceLaw Reforms Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal challenged an order passed by a Single Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court, which accepted a constitutional petition, set aside an order of the Ex-officio Justice of Peace, and directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) regarding the custodial death of the respondent's brother allegedly committed by police officials through severe torture. The core legal questions addressed were the maintainability of an Intra-Court Appeal against an order arising from criminal proceedings under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, and whether a proposed accused in a murder case is entitled to a pre-registration hearing under the principle of natural justice. The Lahore High Court held that the Intra-Court Appeal was barred and not maintainable under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, since the underlying proceedings (an FIR) provided for a statutory remedy. On merits, the court held that in cases involving heinous cognizable offences like murder and custodial violence where evidence may be destroyed, the audi alteram partem rule does not require affording a pre-registration hearing to the proposed accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Intra-Court Appeal is maintainable against an order of a Single Judge passed in constitutional jurisdiction arising out of criminal proceedings such as the registration of an FIR?
  • Does a proposed accused in a murder case have a legal right to a pre-registration hearing before an order for an FIR is passed under section 22-A/B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the pendency or finalization of a judicial or departmental inquiry bar the registration of a criminal case under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the exceptions to the application of the maxim 'audi alteram partem' in criminal matters involving cognizable offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Tariq Maqsood and others vs Province of Punjab and another2017 CLC 389 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-29Read full judgment →
• Mian Shabir Asmail vs The Chief Minister of Punjab, etc.2017 LHC 1874 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-20Read full judgment →
• Mian Shabir Asmail vs Chief Minister of Punjab and others2017 LHC 1874, 2017 PLD Lahore 597 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-20
  public interest litigationtender processpolice uniformpolicy issueabuse of processcost imposedPunjab Procurement Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a public interest petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the process of tendering and calling for bids for the Punjab Police uniform, alleging violations of transparency and the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014, while also raising concerns regarding police infrastructure and culture. The Lahore High Court examined the record and found that the tender was processed strictly in accordance with the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014, and that the introduction of a new police uniform is a policy issue beyond judicial interference, which had also become infructuous as the uniforms were already procured and in use. The Court dismissed the petition with costs, holding that public interest litigation must be grounded in bona fide public interest and verified facts, and should not be abused for publicity or personal motives.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the procurement process for Punjab Police uniforms violated the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014?
  • Does the introduction of a new police uniform constitute a policy issue that warrants judicial interference?
  • What are the foundational principles and preconditions for maintaining a bona fide public interest litigation?
  • Whether a petition filed without verifying facts and lacking genuine public interest is liable to be dismissed with costs?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Mehmood-Ur-Rasheed vs Federation of Pakistan through Additional Secretary and Ministry of Finance and 3 others2017 PTD 2469 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-22Read full judgment →
• (1) Mian Khan etc (2) Mian Khan etc vs (1) The State etc2017 LHC 1278 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-24
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtmedical evidenceunnatural conduct of witnessprevious enmityocular accountacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under various provisions including Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and related offences. The core legal question involves determining whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the precise time of the occurrence, the credibility of ocular and medical evidence, and the natural conduct of eyewitnesses. The Lahore High Court held that material contradictions between the ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the time of death and injuries, the delayed recording of statements, and the unnatural conduct of chance witnesses created serious doubts regarding the prosecution's case. Furthermore, previous enmity between the parties acted as a double-edged sword, providing equal motive for false implication. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants on the principle that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to its benefit as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between medical evidence regarding the time of death and the ocular account create a reasonable doubt sufficient for the acquittal of the accused?
  • Whether the failure of eyewitnesses to promptly shift injured persons to the hospital or report the matter to the police renders their conduct unnatural and their testimony unreliable?
  • Can previous enmity between the parties be treated as a double-edged weapon that equally provides a motive for the false implication of the accused?
  • Does the delayed recording of a prosecution witness's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prove fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Hussain Iftikhar and others vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner2017 YLR 2382 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-16Read full judgment →
• Mian Ghulam Ijaz etc. vs The State etc.PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1018, 2017 LHC 2917 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-24
  physical remandjudicial discretionpolice custodycriminal procedureabetmentfundamental rightsinvestigation delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which set aside a Judicial Magistrate's refusal to grant further physical remand of the petitioners. The petitioners were accused of abetment in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate correctly exercised judicial discretion in denying further police remand after the petitioners had already been in custody for nine days without significant investigative progress. The Court held that the Additional Sessions Judge erred in setting aside the Magistrate's order. It affirmed that remand to police custody is not automatic and requires real necessity, not merely a formal request by the police. The Court laid down the principle that a Magistrate must act judicially, scrutinizing police requests to ensure that physical remand is not granted mechanically or for vague purposes like 'finishing investigation' or obtaining confessions. The liberty of an accused cannot be curtailed without clear justification, and the Magistrate must ensure investigations proceed expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Magistrate legally required to record reasons when authorizing detention in police custody?
  • Can physical remand be granted merely on the request of the police to complete an investigation?
  • Does a Magistrate have the authority to refuse further physical remand if the police fail to show progress in the investigation?
  • Is an accused person's presence in police custody necessary for the sole purpose of arresting other unidentified suspects?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Ghulam Ijaz etc vs State etcPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1018 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-24
  physical remandpolice custodyjudicial remandabetmentcriminal revisionfundamental rightsinvestigationsupplementary statement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby a revision petition was accepted and an order of the Judicial Magistrate refusing further physical remand of the petitioners was set aside. The petitioners were nominated in a supplementary statement recorded seven months after the registration of a murder FIR, with allegations of hatching a conspiracy and abetting unidentified culprits. The core legal question revolved around the legality and justification of granting further physical remand to the police after an initial nine-day remand when no progress had been made and no recoveries were to be effected from the petitioners. The Lahore High Court held that a Magistrate is under a legal obligation to apply a judicial mind and not grant physical remand mechanically on the mere wish of the police or complainant, especially where the accused are charged solely with abetment and no incriminating recoveries are pending. The court laid down that liberty cannot be curtailed without cogent grounds, physical remand should not be used to fill gaps in the prosecution case, and investigations must be concluded promptly with the submission of challans.

  Questions settled

  • Can physical remand of an accused be granted mechanically upon a general request by the police?
  • Whether an accused charged solely with abetment and from whom no recovery is to be made can be remanded to police custody?
  • Is a Magistrate under a legal obligation to record reasons and apply a judicial mind when deciding on a request for physical remand?
  • Does non-completion of an investigation by itself constitute a sufficient cause for extending the detention of an accused in police custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Fiaz Rasool vs The State and 2 others2017 P Cr. L J 440 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-29
  pre-arrest bailjurisdiction of special courtfinal reportdeletion of offencesSection 173 CrPCconstitutional petitioncognizance of offenceframing of charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by a Special Judge (Central) during pre-arrest bail proceedings. The core legal question is whether a Special Court possesses the jurisdiction to determine its own competency and order the deletion of specific offenses from an FIR at the pre-arrest bail stage, prior to the submission of a final report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the Special Judge’s order was premature and legally unsustainable. The Court ruled that a trial court cannot determine its jurisdiction or order the deletion or addition of offenses before the final report (challan) is submitted. The principle laid down is that the prosecution agency retains the authority to modify charges based on evidence until the final report is filed. Furthermore, a court’s power to alter charges is properly exercised only at the stage of framing the charge, not during the pendency of an investigation. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to exercise its jurisdiction only upon the submission of the final report.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Special Court determine its jurisdiction or order the deletion of offenses before the submission of a final report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • At what stage of criminal proceedings does a court have the authority to order the addition or deletion of offenses?
  • Does the prosecution agency have the power to add or delete offenses before submitting the final report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Asia vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2017 LHC 3212, K.L.R. 2017 Civil Cases 308 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-25Read full judgment →
• Mian Asia vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2017 LHC 3212 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-25Read full judgment →
• Mian Abdul Ghafoor Watto vs N.A.B. etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 71 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Unilever Pakistan Foods Limited vs Registrar, Trade Unions and others2017 PLC 102 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-23
  trans-provincial establishmentNational Industrial Relations Commissiontrade union registrationjurisdictional competenceIndustrial Relations Act 2012statutory interpretationfreedom of association
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the registration of a trade union by the Provincial Registrar, contending that the petitioner, Unilever Pakistan Foods Limited, is a trans-provincial establishment. The core legal question was determining the appropriate forum and governing law for registering trade unions in establishments operating across multiple provinces. The Court held that the petitioner is a trans-provincial establishment, and consequently, the Provincial Registrar lacked the jurisdiction to register the respondent trade union. The Court ruled that the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) possesses exclusive jurisdiction over such matters under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The ratio established is that jurisdiction is determined by the status of the employer rather than the nature of the dispute. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 holds overriding effect over provincial laws. It also clarified that statutory definitions from unrelated enactments, such as the Factories Act, 1934, cannot be imported to interpret terms within the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, as legislative intent must be derived from the specific context of the statute itself.

  Questions settled

  • Does the status of the employer or the nature of the dispute determine the jurisdiction for registering a trade union?
  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have exclusive jurisdiction to register trade unions for trans-provincial establishments?
  • Can definitions from the Factories Act, 1934 be imported to interpret the term 'factory' within the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 have overriding effect over provincial labour laws regarding the registration of trade unions?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Tanveer Spinning and Weaving Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized Executive Director Finance vs Tariq Saeed through Shahzad Akber and 2 others2017 YLR 1762 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sixon Pakistan Private Limited vs Ghulam Fareed Zahid2017 PLJ Lahore 487, 2017 CLC 518 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-13Read full judgment →
• Moazzam Din Butt, etc. vs The State and anotherK.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 49 · Lahore High Court · 2016-08-24
  post-arrest bailtentative assessmentcriminal trespasstheftbail refusalhigh-handedness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioners, Moazzam Din Butt and Muneeb Butt, who were charged under Sections 452, 447, 380, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for trespassing into the complainant's house, ousting inmates at gunpoint, and committing theft. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the allegations of high-handedness, the recovery of stolen articles, and the dishonouring of a cheque issued to the complainant. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that there was sufficient incriminating material on record to connect the petitioners to the alleged offence. The Court emphasized that while deciding bail applications, courts must perform only a tentative assessment of the material, as deeper appreciation of evidence is reserved for the trial stage. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners' actions violated Article 4 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, and the evidentiary value of conflicting affidavits would be determined by the trial court after recording evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Should a court conduct a deep appreciation of evidence when deciding a post-arrest bail application?
  • Does the existence of pending civil litigation regarding the property in dispute automatically entitle an accused to bail in a criminal case involving trespass and theft?
  • Is the tentative assessment of incriminating material sufficient to deny bail to an accused named in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Mushtaq Ahmad vs Government of Punjab and others2017 PTD 1050 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shandar Vegetable and Ghee Mills through Chief Executive vs Learned Judge Banking Court No.II, Multan and 3 others2017 PLJ Lahore 216, 2017 CLD 280 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shaikh Naveed Ikhlas and 2 others vs Shaikh Abdul Hafeez and 62017 CLC 1278 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shahzadi Polypropylene Industries through Proprietor vs Federation of Pakistan through President and 4 others2017 PTD 2019 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-30
  Intra Court Appealincome tax refundFederal Tax Ombudsmanjurisdiction of Ombudsmanmaladministrationtax liabilitystatutory remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal under Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 challenged the dismissal of a constitutional petition against an order passed by the President on a representation under the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000. The appellant sought a refund of excess income tax paid for the year 2010, initially approaching the Federal Tax Ombudsman after the tax authorities failed to issue a refund voucher. The core legal question was whether the Federal Tax Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate matters relating to tax refunds, assessment, and determination of tax liability when specific legal remedies of appeal, review, or revision are available under the relevant tax legislation. The Lahore High Court held that the Federal Tax Ombudsman lacks jurisdiction to inquire into matters concerning the determination of tax liability or refunds where statutory appellate remedies are provided under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The court laid down the principle that the jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman is ousted in tax matters where alternative statutory remedies such as appeals to the Commissioner under the Income Tax Ordinance are available.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Tax Ombudsman take cognizance of a matter relating to a tax refund when statutory remedies of appeal are available under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Whether matters relating to the assessment of income or determination of tax liability fall within the exclusionary jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman?
  • Does an Intra Court Appeal lie against an order passed in constitutional jurisdiction upholding a representation decided by the President under the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sarwar and Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Appellate Tribunal Inland2017 PLJ Lahore 134, 2017 PTD 558 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pak Gen Power Ltd. through Senior Manager Finance vs Commissioner Inland Revenue and 4 others2017 PTD 495 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Highway Authority through Duly Authorised Director2017 PLD Lahore 390 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-24
  writ jurisdictionmining rightsownership of mineralsmaintainabilityalternate remedylocus standiland acquisition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a tender notice for public auction and a subsequent lease order issued by the Mines and Minerals Department, Government of Punjab, regarding land allegedly acquired by the National Highway Authority (NHA) for the Islamabad-Peshawar Motorway (M-1). The core legal questions concerned whether the NHA could challenge the provincial government's authority to lease mineral rights on acquired land, whether factual disputes regarding land ownership are triable in writ jurisdiction, and the availability of alternate statutory remedies. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable due to the existence of disputed factual questions regarding land ownership and the failure of the petitioner to exhaust the statutory appellate remedy provided under the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Section 49 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, all minerals beneath the surface of land, regardless of surface ownership, vest in the provincial government. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the NHA lacked locus standi to challenge the government's mining concessions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained when there is a disputed question of fact regarding land ownership?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a petition where an alternate statutory remedy is available but not exhausted?
  • Do minerals beneath the surface of land vest in the provincial government even if the surface land has been acquired by a public authority?
  • Does the National Highway Authority have the locus standi to challenge a mining lease granted by the provincial government on land acquired for a motorway project?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Naeem Zafar Industries and others vs Bank of Punjab2017 CLD 397 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Multan Electric Power Co. Limited (MEPCO) through Chief(2017) 116 TAX 130 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Makma Steel Craft (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Allied Bank Limited2017 PLJ Lahore 677, 2017 CLD 302 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Magna Processing Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Appellate Tribunal2017 PTD 2247 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Leo Communication (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 LHC 2716, 2017 PLD Lahore 709 · Lahore High Court · 2017-07-18
  freedom of speech and expressionPEMRApublic interestbroadcast licenseprinciple of reciprocityconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsregulatory authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a satellite TV licensee, challenged a PEMRA circular that unilaterally banned Indian content, arguing it violated their license terms and fundamental rights. The core legal questions were whether PEMRA’s reliance on the "principle of reciprocity"—in response to a private Indian channel’s actions—constituted a valid "public interest" justification under the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002, and whether this ban infringed upon the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the impugned circular was unconstitutional and illegal. It ruled that "public interest" must be substantive, tangible, and proximate, rather than a reactive or "tit-for-tat" policy. The Court established that the principle of reciprocity is not a valid legal ground for restricting fundamental rights. Furthermore, it emphasized that freedom of speech includes the right to broadcast diverse cultural content, and any restriction must be strictly justified by constitutional parameters rather than extra-legal considerations. The petition was allowed, and the circular was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 'principle of reciprocity' constitute a valid ground for restricting fundamental rights under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can PEMRA unilaterally alter the terms of a broadcast license without serving a show cause notice as required by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002?
  • Does the broadcast of foreign content by a satellite TV channel fall under the protection of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What constitutes 'public interest' sufficient to justify reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kingsway Capital LLP and anothers vs Murree Brewery Co. Ltd.2017 CLD 587 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-28
  Extraordinary General Meetingnotice of meetingmaterial factscapitalisation of reservesbonus sharescorporate representativeproxyarticles of association
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under sections 160A and 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 challenged the validity of an Extraordinary General Meeting (EOGM) held by Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. on September 29, 2016, along with its notice and resolutions enhancing authorized share capital for issuing bonus shares. The core legal questions involved whether the notice violated mandatory disclosure requirements under section 160(1)(b), whether capitalization of reserves and bonus share issuance require a special resolution under the Articles of Association and section 28, and whether the company's chairman wrongly rejected the petitioners' corporate representative. The Lahore High Court held that the EOGM and its notice were vitiated due to non-compliance with section 160(1)(b) for failing to annex a statement of material facts, and that capitalization of reserves and altering articles require strict adherence to the company's articles and statutory provisions rather than unilateral board action. The Court laid down that statutory requirements for notices and special business are mandatory to protect shareholder rights, and that capitalisation of reserves is distinct from interim dividends and must be authorized by members in a general meeting.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a notice of an extraordinary general meeting is rendered a nullity if it fails to annex a statement setting out all material facts concerning special business under section 160(1)(b) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Does the capitalization of reserves and issuance of bonus shares fall within the exclusive domain of shareholders in a general meeting or the Board of Directors?
  • Whether the appointment of a corporate representative under section 162 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 is governed by the restrictions applicable to proxies under section 161?
  • Whether an increase in the authorized share capital of a company requires an alteration of its articles of association subject to the three-fourths majority requirement under section 28 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kamal Ltd. through Director vs Federation of Pakistan through Chairman and 2 others2017 PTD 243 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Irfan Industries (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive vs Standard Chartered Bank through. Chief Executive Officer and another-s2017 CLD 223, 2017 MLD 312 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-24
  rejection of plaintrendition of accountscontractual relationshipres judicatabanking disputepreliminary issue
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter involves an application filed by the defendant bank under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the rejection of a plaint in a suit primarily seeking rendition of accounts arising from a contractual banking relationship. The core legal question addressed is whether a suit for rendition of accounts is maintainable between parties bound by a contractual relationship where no statutory or fiduciary duty to render accounts exists, and whether such a suit becomes barred by res judicata upon the decreeing of a cross-suit between the same parties. The Lahore High Court held that a suit for rendition of accounts is an exceptional remedy not maintainable under a purely contractual relationship where the plaintiff can otherwise ascertain amounts or file a money recovery suit, and that the suit was barred by res judicata following a judgment and decree rendered in a connected cross-suit. The key principle laid down is that a right to seek rendition of accounts must stem from a statute or a fiduciary relationship, rather than a mere contractual one, and cannot be invoked simply because a party lacks exact knowledge of due amounts.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for rendition of accounts maintainable between parties in a contractual relationship?
  • Can a suit for rendition of accounts be maintained merely because the plaintiff does not know the exact amount due?
  • Whether a subsequent judgment and decree in a cross-suit renders a pending suit barred by res judicata?
  • Does Order XX Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 create a substantive right to seek rendition of accounts?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Iqbal and Sons through Authorized Representative vs FederationPTCL 2017 CL. 627, 2017 PTD 590 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-27
  Sales Tax Act 1990Section 38 inspectionstatutory interpretationconstitutional petitiontax auditreasonable causeindependent provisions
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged notices issued under Section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, by the tax authorities. The petitioners contended that Section 38 cannot be invoked independently and is contingent upon the procedural formalities of Section 25 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, arguing that an audit under Section 25 is a prerequisite for such notices. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that Section 38 is an independent, self-executing provision that does not require prior completion of Section 25 proceedings. The Court emphasized that interpreting Section 38 as subordinate to Section 25 would render the former redundant, violating the canon of statutory construction that every legislative provision must be given effect. The Court clarified that while Section 38 is independent, it is not absolute; it requires the tax department to have reasonable cause, recorded in writing, and proper authorization from the Board or Commissioner. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Section 38 is strictly limited to the inspection of records and premises and does not empower officers to conduct search and seizure operations.

  Questions settled

  • Can notices under Section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, be issued independently of the audit proceedings mandated by Section 25 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Does the power of inspection under Section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, authorize tax officers to conduct search and seizure operations?
  • Is the provision of Section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, subject to the procedural formalities of Section 25 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • What are the prerequisites for a valid inspection under Section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ijaz Nizam vs Nib Bank and others2017 CLD 361 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-08
  banking courtrecovery suitleave to defendclosing right of evidenceremand of casefinancial institutions recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court in a recovery suit filed by the respondent bank under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question concerns whether the Banking Court was justified in closing the appellants' right to produce evidence and prematurely decreeing the suit without affording sufficient opportunities, particularly in a case remanded for framing issues and recording evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the Banking Court committed a material irregularity and acted in undue haste by closing the appellants' right to lead evidence without granting adequate opportunities, thereby condemning them unheard and violating the mandatory procedures under section 10(11) of the 2001 Ordinance and Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remanded the matter back to the Banking Court with directions to provide the appellants an opportunity to produce their evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Banking Court is justified in closing a defendant's right to produce evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without granting adequate opportunities?
  • Can a Banking Court decree a suit under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 without recording the evidence of all parties after leave to defend has been granted?
  • What are the procedural requirements under section 10(11) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 once leave to defend is granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hanif Metal Store through Proprietor and others vs Bank of Punjab through Manager and others2017 CLD 447 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hafiz Steel Furnace and 4 others vs Directorate of Intelligence2017 PTD 761 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Habib Metropolitan Bank Limited vs Messrs Subhan Knitwear2017 CLD 298 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ghee Corporation Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore vs Dcit, Officer, Lahore2017 PTD 1824 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ghee Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner2017 PTD 1153 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Flying Cement Company Ltd. vs Appellate Tribunal InlandPTCL 2017 CL. 146, 2017 PTD 627 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Eden Developers (Pvt.) Limited vs Government of the Punjab2017 PLD Lahore 442 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Doctor Agro Chemical and others vs Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Live Stock and others2017 CLC 689 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Colony Sugar Mills Ltd. through Deputy Manager vs Province of Punjab and 5 others2017 PTD 406 · Lahore High Court · 2016-07-15
  constitutional petitionprovincial excise dutyPunjab Excise Act 1914manufacture of spiritethanolinter-provincial tradelegislative competencedouble taxation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 31 read with Sections 3(6) and 3(14) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, along with Notification dated 03.07.2012 imposing excise duty on the manufacture of spirit at Rs. 2 per liter, and a subsequent show-cause notice. The core legal questions were whether ethanol or spirit constitutes an excisable alcoholic liquor within the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature under Article 142, and whether the levy infringed inter-provincial trade under Article 151 or fundamental rights under Articles 18 and 25. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that spirit falls under the definition of liquor and excisable article under the Act of 1914. The court ruled that under Article 142, alcoholic liquor is excluded from Entry No. 44 of the Federal Legislative List and falls within provincial domain. Furthermore, imposing duty on local manufacturing does not restrict free trade under Article 151, nor can an incorporated body invoke Article 25.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ethanol or spirit falls within the definition of alcoholic liquor and excisable article under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914?
  • Whether the Provincial Legislature has exclusive legislative competence under Article 142 of the Constitution to impose excise duty on the manufacture of spirit?
  • Whether the levy of excise duty on the manufacturing of spirit within a province violates the freedom of inter-provincial trade under Article 151 of the Constitution?
  • Can an incorporated company claim protection under Article 25 of the Constitution as a citizen to challenge the constitutionality of a fiscal statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Chief Sarhad Cargo Service through Proprietor and others vs Judge Banking Court No. II, Lahore and others2017 CLD 1269 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Chaudhry Sugar Mills Ltd vs Province of Punjab and others2017 LHC 3082, 2017 PLD Lahore 848 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ayub Textile Industries through Proprietor vs Commissioner2017 PTD 352 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Arbab Cotton Industries and Oil Mills through Managing Partner2017 CLD 1657 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-21
  banking courtex parte decreerecovery suitleave to defendmaintainability of appealfinancial institutions recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal challenged an order passed by the Banking Court, which refused to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree previously issued against the appellant in a recovery suit filed by a respondent bank. The appellant argued that the Banking Court had prioritized technicalities over fair adjudication and failed to properly appreciate the record. The core legal question was whether an application to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree, passed on merits by a Banking Court, is maintainable under the relevant financial recovery laws. Upon review, the Court observed that the Banking Court had indeed passed the decree on merits after examining the record and the appellant's application for leave to defend, even while proceeding ex parte. The Court held that a judgment and decree passed on merits cannot be set aside under the provisions of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The established principle is that the appropriate remedy in such circumstances is to file an appeal against the judgment and decree itself, rather than seeking to set aside the ex parte order.

  Questions settled

  • Is an application to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree passed on merits by a Banking Court maintainable under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a party aggrieved by an ex parte judgment and decree passed on merits by a Banking Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Angora Textiles Ltd. and others vs Nib Bank Limited and others2017 CLD 867 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Alfalah Medicos through Sole Proprietor and anothers vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Primary and Secondary Healthcare and 4 others2017 PLD Lahore 124 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Air Ciro through Senior Partner vs Civil Aviation Authority2017 CLC 126 · Lahore High Court · 2016-07-01Read full judgment →
• MEPCO, etc. vs Advisory Board, Punjab, Lahore etc.2017 PLD Lahore 769, 2017 PLJ Lahore 364, 2017 LHC 445 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-31Read full judgment →
• Memoona Ilyas vs Addl. District Judge, etc.2017 CLC 1747, 2017 LHC 2257 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-02
  guardianshipinterim custodyvisitation rightsfamily courtsappealability of interim ordersconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an appellate judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which modified a Guardian Judge's order regarding interim custody and visitation rights of minor children. The petitioner contended that the appeal before the District Judge was incompetent under Section 14(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and that an order under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, was not appealable and amounted to an improper review of an earlier final order. The Lahore High Court held that disputes relating to guardianship are exclusively triable by Family Courts under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and that an order passed under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, constitutes a 'decision given' rather than a barred 'interim order' under Section 14(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, thus rendering the appeal competent. The Court laid down the principle that Guardian Judges exercise parental jurisdiction unhindered by strict technicalities, allowing fresh applications on new grounds, and that Family Courts are quasi-judicial bodies empowered to formulate their own procedures ensuring fair hearings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 by a Family Court constitutes an appealable decision under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Does Section 14(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 bar an appeal against an order granting interim custody or visitation of minors?
  • Can a Guardian Judge entertain a subsequent application for interim custody or visitation after a previous order has been passed?
  • What is the scope of constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court over factual determinations made by appellate courts in family matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehran Ginning Industries and 2 others vs Sajid Shafique and 12 others2017 [M] C.L.R. 1716 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-23Read full judgment →
• Mehnaz Bibi vs Additional District Judge, etc.2017 KLR Civil Cases 132, 2017 LHC 1125 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-15Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Anwar vs Abdul Hanan etc.2017 LHC 1985 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-03Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Anwan vs Abdul Hanan, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 1221 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-03Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Alam vs Mushtaq Ahmed, etc2017 LHC 212 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-30Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Alim vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 1164 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-27
  criminal appealreferee judgebenefit of doubtocular evidenceinterested witnessesdelayed FIRacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was referred to a referee judge under Section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 following a split verdict between the members of a Division Bench. The appellant had been convicted by the trial court for the murder of two individuals and attempted murder, receiving death sentences and other penalties. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt given significant evidentiary contradictions. Upon independent scrutiny, the Court found the prosecution's case riddled with fatal flaws, including doubts regarding the timing of the First Information Report, the actual place of occurrence, the source of light for identification, and the motive. Furthermore, the Court noted the unexplained delay in recording witness statements and the unreliability of the interested witnesses. Applying the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Consequently, the conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reaffirms that a referee judge must independently assess evidence to reach a binding decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does a referee judge under Section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 have the authority to form an independent opinion on evidence rather than merely agreeing with one of the dissenting judges?
  • Is the delay in recording the statements of prosecution witnesses by the police fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of the accused's absconsion when the ocular evidence is found to be unreliable?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehar Pervaiz Akhtar vs Director General Excise and Taxation, Lahore2017 PTD 1962 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-24Read full judgment →
• Mehar Pervaiz Akhtar vs Director General Excise and Taxation Lahore etc2017 PLD Lahore 790, 2017 PTD 1962, 2017 LHC 2568 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-24Read full judgment →
• Meena Gul alias Yasmin and others vs The State and others2017 P Cr. L J 1563 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-17
  murderdeath sentenceself-defensedying declarationadversarial systemstatement of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence for the murder of a grocery shop owner. The prosecution's case rested on a detailed but hearsay complaint by the deceased's father and the ocular account of a single witness who claimed to have heard the dying declaration of the deceased implicating the appellant and two acquitted co-accused. The appellant pleaded self-defense, asserting she killed the deceased to protect her modesty when he entered her home armed. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found the solitary eye-witness's testimony highly improbable, contradictory, and already disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused. The Court held that in an adversarial system, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot rely on the accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to fill gaps, as such statements must be accepted or rejected in their entirety. Consequently, the conviction was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can the prosecution rely on the admission of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to sustain a conviction if it fails to independently prove its case?
  • Whether the statement of an accused recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on ocular evidence that has been disbelieved and rejected regarding identically placed co-accused without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Genertech Pakistan Ltd. and others2017 CLD 570 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mazhar vs SHO, etc.2017 LHC 3172 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-15
  habeas corpusillegal detentionpolice torturedue processdaily diaryunauthorized custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a habeas corpus petition seeking the recovery of three detenues found in illegal police confinement. The core legal question concerns the legality of the detention of individuals kept at a police station without recording their arrest in the online daily diary and without lawful justification. The Court held that the detention was entirely illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the due process of law, ordering the immediate release of the detenues upon furnishing personal bonds. The key principle laid down is that police officials are not above the law, and maintaining undisclosed or unauthorized detentions alongside subjecting citizens to torture constitutes a grave abuse of authority, mandating departmental inquiry and strict disciplinary action against delinquent officials by the competent authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order the immediate release of detenues found in unlawful police custody without a recorded arrest?
  • Whether the police can detain individuals based on unverified suspicion without incorporating their arrest in the online daily diary?
  • What is the remedy when police officials subject detainees to illegal confinement and torture?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Nawaz vs The State etc.2017 LHC 2336 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-23
  murderocular evidencerelated witnessesinterested witnessesmitigating circumstancecriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife, Mst. Shabana Aslam, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of prosecution eye-witnesses who were closely related to both the deceased and the appellant, and the impact of a failed recovery of the murder weapon on the conviction. The Court held that the conviction was sound, affirming that mere relationship does not render witnesses "interested" or unreliable, particularly when the witnesses are related to both parties and lack enmity. The Court emphasized that the ocular account was natural and consistent, corroborated by medical evidence. While the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of the weapon, the Court ruled this did not invalidate the conviction but served as a mitigating circumstance regarding the quantum of sentence, justifying the imposition of life imprisonment rather than a capital sentence. The principle laid down is that related witnesses are credible absent evidence of enmity, and failed recoveries do not automatically undermine otherwise trustworthy ocular testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Does the close relationship between prosecution witnesses and the deceased automatically render such witnesses 'interested' and unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence is not proved by the prosecution?
  • Does the failure to prove the recovery of a weapon of offence constitute a mitigating circumstance for the quantum of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Nawaz vs State etc.PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 917 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-23
  jail appealmurderocular accountinterested witnessmitigating circumstanceweapon recoverymotivecapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Lodhran, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his pregnant wife. The core legal questions involved the credibility of closely related eye-witnesses, the establishment of motive regarding a property dispute, and the evidentiary value of a disputed weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court held that close relationship does not disqualify a witness unless animosity is proved, that natural ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence is sufficient for conviction, and that a defective recovery of the crime weapon can serve as a mitigating circumstance against the death penalty. The court laid down the principle that mere relationship to the deceased does not render a witness interested or unreliable, especially when the accused is also related, and that a flawed weapon recovery alone cannot discard otherwise trustworthy ocular testimony but may warrant the lesser punishment of life imprisonment rather than death.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an eye-witness can be discarded solely on the ground of a close relationship with the deceased?
  • Does a contradiction in the recovery of the crime weapon vitiate an otherwise reliable ocular account in a murder trial?
  • Can a defective or unproved recovery of a weapon of offense serve as a mitigating circumstance to withhold the death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Iqbal vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 787 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-14
  post-arrest baildishonour of chequeprohibitory clausedelay in FIRpenal provisionrecovery of amount
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the case. The Court observed that there was an unexplained delay of over three months in the registration of the FIR, suggesting deliberation. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner was a previous non-convict and the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is a penal provision and not a mechanism for debt recovery, for which civil remedies under Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 exist. Emphasizing that further incarceration served no purpose as investigation was complete, the Court granted bail, establishing that mere registration of other cases without conviction is insufficient to deny bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of other criminal cases without conviction constitute sufficient grounds to refuse bail?
  • Is Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 intended to function as a mechanism for the recovery of money?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR impact the entitlement to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Iqbal Poultry Farm vs Environmental Tribunal, Lahore and others2017 CLD 1054 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-02Read full judgment →
• Mashooq Ali vs State & anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 352 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-01Read full judgment →
• Maria Sanam vs The State and another2017 MLD 1373 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-21
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilityextrajudicial confessionwomen in custodybail after arrest
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Maria Sanam, who was accused in an FIR involving charges under sections 302, 376, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence and her status as a woman. The court observed that the occurrence was unseen, the Chemical Examiner's report prima facie falsified the allegation of administering sleeping pills, and the co-accused had already been granted bail based on a compromise. The court held that the petitioner's case fell under the category of further inquiry and that, as a woman, she was entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court noted the delay in trial and the fact that the petitioner was not required for further investigation. Consequently, the court granted bail, establishing that where evidence is tentative and the accused is a woman, bail should be granted pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a female accused is entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a non-bailable offence?
  • Does the existence of a Chemical Examiner's report contradicting the prosecution's story constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an extrajudicial confession made in police custody be considered sufficient material to deny bail to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Marahaba Pakistan International Bashir Designs Furniture and another vs Habib Bank Limited and another2017 CLD 995, 2017 P.T.C.L.R. 267, 2017 PLJ Lahore 600, 2017 LHC 813 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-08Read full judgment →
• Marahaba Pakistan International and others vs Habib Bank Limited and another2017 CLD 995 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-08Read full judgment →
• Marahaba Pakistan International and another vs Habib Bank Limited and another2017 P.T.C.L.R. 267 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Maqsood Hussain vs Habib Bank Limited and others2017 CLD 507 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-05Read full judgment →
• Maple Leaf Cement Factory vs Environmental Protection Ltd. Agency, etc2017 LHC 4343 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-21Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Ali vs Additional District Judge (West), Islamabad and other2017 MLD 1432 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-02Read full judgment →
• Manager (Op) MEPCO Circle Dera Ghazi Khan and another vs Sheikh2017 PLJ Lahore 991 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-11Read full judgment →
• Malik Zaheer Arshad vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 LHC 3035 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-29Read full judgment →
• Malik Zafar-Ul-Islam and 3 others vs Abdul Azeem Latif and 2 others2017 YLR 1509 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-16Read full judgment →
• Malik Zafar-Ul-Islam and 3 others vs Abdul Azeem Lateef and 2 others2017 YLR 1509, 2017 PLJ Lahore 616 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-16Read full judgment →
• Malik Sohail Aslam vs Superintendent of Police (Operation), Lahore2017 YLR 1548 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-05
  Intra Court AppealEx-Officio Justice of Peaceregistration of FIRdishonoured chequecognizable offencecriminal liabilityconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers whereby a constitutional petition against the direction of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for the registration of a criminal case was allowed. The core legal question revolves around the legality of the order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, directing the registration of a case based on dishonoured cheques. The Lahore High Court held that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace rightly exercised discretion in issuing directions for recording an FIR when the application disclosed a cognizable offence regarding the issuance of dishonoured cheques. The Court established that an SHO cannot hold a preliminary inquiry into the truth or falsity of information before recording an FIR, and that the existence of a civil or business dispute does not bar criminal proceedings if a cognizable offence like Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is prima facie made out. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Single Bench order was set aside, and the order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace issue directions to the police for the registration of a criminal case under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an officer in charge of a police station can hold an inquiry into the truth or falsity of information before recording an FIR?
  • Does the issuance of a cheque in respect of a financial obligation attract criminal liability under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when dishonoured?
  • Can a constitutional petition successfully impugn an order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace that directs the recording of a criminal case for a prima facie cognizable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Shaukat Ali vs Superintendent of Police Model Town, Circle, Lahore and 4 others2017 PLJ Lahore 479 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Shafaqat Hussain vs Chief Election Commissioner, Punjab and 52017 MLD 856 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-29Read full judgment →
• Malik Sajjad Amin vs Mst. Shagufta Mazhar and 4 others2017 YLR 735 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-14Read full judgment →
• Malik Sajid Ismaeel and others vs The State and others2017 MLD 446 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-10
  pre-arrest bailpoisoningmedical evidenceDiyatmala fidecriminal investigationtentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for pre-arrest bail filed by several accused persons in a case involving allegations of poisoning registered under FIR No. 259/2015. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the medical evidence and the nature of the offense charged under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail for all petitioners. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the medical evidence failed to detect poison or violence, and the cause of death remained unascertained, directly contradicting the complainant's oral allegations. Furthermore, the court emphasized that since the offense under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is punishable by Diyat rather than life imprisonment or death, the petitioners' liberty should not be curtailed based solely on allegations. The court also highlighted that the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation, and the lack of motive, combined with contradictory medical evidence, suggested potential mala fide on the part of the complainant. These findings remain tentative, allowing the trial court to decide the case independently.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of medical evidence confirming the cause of death justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the alleged offense is punishable by Diyat rather than life imprisonment or death?
  • Can the court grant pre-arrest bail when the complainant's allegations are prima facie contradicted by medical reports?
  • Does the cooperation of an accused with the investigation process support the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Usman vs Justice of Peace/Asj, Chiniot and others2017 P Cr. L J 524 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-06
  constitutional petitionregistration of FIRJustice of Peacecognizable offenceShajjah-i-Mudihahcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the ex-officio Justice of Peace, Chiniot, which dismissed the petitioner's application under sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, seeking the registration of a criminal case regarding a land dispute and physical injuries. The core legal question was whether the Justice of Peace was justified in refusing to direct the registration of a First Information Report based on civil disputes and prior criminal record of the petitioner, despite the disclosure of a cognizable offence involving an injury declared as Shajjah-i-Mudihah. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was perverse for failing to consider the legal aspects, emphasizing that the commission of a cognizable offence mandates police action under the law and that prior criminal cases do not disqualify a citizen from seeking criminal law remedies. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and authorities were directed to proceed in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the ex-officio Justice of Peace can refuse to direct the registration of a criminal case when the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence?
  • Does the pendency of civil proceedings or a prior criminal record disqualify a person from seeking the registration of a criminal case?
  • Is the Station House Officer under a legal obligation to proceed under section 154 or 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 upon receiving information of an offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Shahid & another vs Election Tribunal Gujranwala &2017 LHC 4162 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-16Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Hashim Awan and another vs Chief Secretary2017 PLC (C.S.) 1085 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-26
  writ petitionnon-statutory rulesmaster and servantretrospective notificationpensionary benefitscorporate employees
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by retired employees of the Punjab Road Transport Corporation (PRTC) challenging orders refusing them pensionary benefits including ad hoc relief, annual increments, and move-over under a 2002 Finance Department notification. The core legal questions involved whether employees governed by non-statutory corporate rules can invoke writ jurisdiction and whether a government notification can be applied retrospectively to employees who retired prior to its cut-off date. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the rules of the PRTC are non-statutory, thereby rendering the constitutional writ petition incompetent under the principle of master and servant. Furthermore, the court held that notifications operate prospectively and cannot benefit employees who retired years prior to the specified cut-off date. The key principles laid down are that employees of corporations lacking statutory rules cannot invoke writ jurisdiction for individual employment grievances, and that subordinate policy notifications cannot have retrospective application to impair past settlements.

  Questions settled

  • Are the service rules of the Punjab Road Transport Corporation statutory in nature?
  • Is a constitutional writ petition competent for the enforcement of employment terms governed by non-statutory rules?
  • Can a government notification regarding financial benefits operate retrospectively to cover employees who retired prior to its cut-off date?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of corporations lacking statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Masood Iqbal. vs Osama Mehmood, etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 597 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-21Read full judgment →
• Malik Masood Iqbal vs Osama Mehmood, etc2017 PLJ Lahore 597, 2017 LHC 961 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-21Read full judgment →
• Malik Iqbal Ahmad Langrial, Ex-Mpa vs The State and another2017 PLJ Lahore 781, 2017 PLD Lahore 683 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-06Read full judgment →
• Malik Iqbal Ahmad Langrial, Ex-Mpa vs The State & another2017 PLJ Lahore 781 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-06Read full judgment →
• Malik Faisal Imran vs Federation of Pakistan etc2017 LHC 4478 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-25Read full judgment →
• Malik Ejaz Ahmed vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2017 LHC 762 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
• Malik Brothers Cotton Ginning Pressing and Oil Mills through Sole2017 MLD 467 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-26Read full judgment →
• Malik Ashfaq Ahmad vs Punjab Cooperatives Board for Liquidation2017 MLD 439 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-11Read full judgment →