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.

• Pathana and 10 others vs Noora and 32 others2000 YLR 485 · Lahore High Court · 1999-10-13Read full judgment →
• PASSCO vs M/s. SH. Muhammad Latif2000 C.L.R. 116 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-10Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority vs Kot Adu Power2000 C.L.R. 1924 · Lahore High Court · 2000-05-15Read full judgment →
• Pakistan WAPDA and otherss vs Kot Addu Power Co. Ltd.2000 PLD Lahore 461 · Lahore High Court · 2000-04-12Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Railways, Islamabad and another vs Messrs Rajastan Alloys and Steel (Private) Limited through Aftab Enterprises, Lahore2000 PLD Lahore 157 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-08
  Arbitration awardMisconduct of arbitratorFraming of issuesRemandRule of courtArbitration Act 1940Civil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, challenged a trial court order that made an arbitration award a rule of the court. The appellants contended that the trial court failed to frame a material issue regarding the arbitrator's alleged misconduct, despite specific objections raised in the pleadings. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s failure to frame an issue on the alleged misconduct of the arbitrator vitiated the proceedings and required a remand. The High Court held that the trial court failed in its mandatory duty under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to examine the legality and validity of the award. The Court emphasized that framing distinct issues for all material propositions is essential for proper adjudication. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision after framing proper issues arising from the pleadings. The judgment reaffirms that a court must independently scrutinize an award for validity, even if parties fail to pursue specific objections, to prevent miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have a duty to frame distinct issues for all material propositions of fact or law raised in the pleadings in arbitration proceedings?
  • Is a court required to independently examine the validity of an arbitration award even if parties fail to pursue specific objections?
  • Can an appellate court remand a case to the trial court for failing to frame a material issue regarding the alleged misconduct of an arbitrator?
  • Does the failure to frame a material issue regarding the misconduct of an arbitrator constitute a ground for setting aside an order making an award a rule of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Limited vs Begum Rehana Sarwar2000 CLC 506 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-17Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Limited through Divisional Manager, Multan2000 MLD 689 · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-15Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Limited (Picic) vs M_s. Waseem Beverages Limited through Chief ExecutivePTCL 2000 CL. 711 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Limited2000 MLD 660 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-29Read full judgment →
• P.L. C. I.C. vs Waseem Beverages Ltd.(2000 P.C.T.L.R. 1100) · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-29Read full judgment →
• Omari Khoja vs The State and 2 others2000 P Cr. L J 1002 · Lahore High Court
  double jeopardynarcotics smugglingquashing of criminal proceedingssuccessive trialsconstitutional protectionSpecial Judge Customs
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a series of criminal petitions challenging the legality of successive trials for the same offense. The core legal question presented was whether an individual, having been tried, acquitted, or convicted by a Special Judge (Customs) for smuggling or possession of narcotics, could subsequently be prosecuted for the same conduct under the Control of Narcotics Substances Ordinance, 1996. The Court held that such a second trial is legally barred. Relying on constitutional protections against double jeopardy and statutory safeguards, the Court determined that the offense of smuggling and carrying narcotics constitutes a single, indivisible act. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions and quashed the pending proceedings against the petitioners in the Court of Special Judge, Narcotics, Lahore. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, as enshrined in Article 13 of the Constitution, read with Section 26 of the General Clauses Act and Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prohibits the prosecution of an accused for the same offense twice, regardless of the specific forum or statute under which the subsequent trial is initiated.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person be tried for the same offense of smuggling or possession of narcotics under the Control of Narcotics Substances Ordinance, 1996, after having been previously tried by a Special Judge (Customs) for the same conduct?
  • Does the constitutional protection against double jeopardy bar a second trial for the same offense under different statutes?
  • Is a second trial for the same offense of smuggling and carrying narcotics prohibited under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the General Clauses Act 1897?
  Read full judgment →
• Numan Adnan Industries vs Chairman, C,B.R. and others2000 CLC 29 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-15Read full judgment →
• Not vs Administrator, Market Committee, Burewala, District Vehari2000 CLC 1249 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-30Read full judgment →
• Noorulhassan vs The State2000 YLR 2185 · Lahore High Court · 2000-05-09
  post-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustmisappropriationPOL productsprohibitory clausecarriage contractoreconomic crime
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition arising out of F.I.R. No. 187 of 1999 registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 378, 109, and 413 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Mahmood Kot, Muzaffargarh. The petitioner, a carriage contractor responsible for transporting POL products for Pakistan State Oil (PSO), was accused of criminal breach of trust after 46 trucks containing POL products failed to reach their destinations. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that 46 consignments went missing, despite contentions regarding civil liability and the applicability of the prohibitory clause under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the large-scale misappropriation affecting national economic well-being constituted an exceptional circumstance taking the case out of the general rule favoring bail for offences carrying lesser sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a carriage contractor can be held criminally liable for the non-delivery of multiple consignments of goods entrusted for transport?
  • Does large-scale economic subversion through systematic misappropriation constitute an exception to the general rule of granting bail for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a principal be held criminally liable for the acts of an agent or servant in the absence of connivance?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State2000 YLR 133 · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-16Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Tariq Rashid Mehboobi And OtherK.L.R. 2000 Civil Cases 372 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-19Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs S.H.O., Police Station Klur Kot, District Bhakkar2000 YLR 85 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-03Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Kamran Jameel (minor)2000 C.L.R. 574 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-04Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Jamal Din and others2000 CLC 305 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-14
  general power of attorneyagreement to sellfraudlimitationrevisional jurisdictiondiscretionary reliefadverse inferencemutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts which decreed the plaintiffs' suit for declaration and cancellation regarding a registered general power of attorney, a sale-deed, and a mutation. The core legal question involved whether a general power of attorney coupled with an agreement to sell for consideration could be invalidated after a long lapse of time based on allegations of fraud and the subsequent death of some principals, and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to discretionary relief despite concealing material facts and failing to enter the witness-box. The Lahore High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. The High Court held that the concurrent findings were perverse and a result of misreading and non-reading of evidence, that a power of attorney coupled with an interest and executed for valuable consideration remains effective, that the burden of proving fraud rests heavily on the alleging party who failed to discharge it, and that a party withholding themselves from the witness-box cannot be granted discretionary equitable relief.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a general power of attorney coupled with an agreement to sell and executed for valuable consideration is terminated by the death of one of the principals as to the entire property or only to the extent of his interest?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the approach to evidence is perverse or constitutes misreading and non-reading of evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of a party failing to enter the witness-box to personally testify regarding material facts peculiarly within their knowledge when challenging registered documents after a long delay?
  • Is a plaintiff who approbates and reprobates and conceals material facts entitled to the grant of discretionary relief under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Government of PUNJABthrough Secretary2000 PLC (C.S.) 204 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-03
  transfer and postingcivil servantmala fideconstitutional petitionservice tribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional petition challenging a transfer order dated 10-11-1998 passed by the Director, Elementary Education, which cancelled an earlier transfer order dated 14-9-1998 concerning primary school teachers. The core legal question revolves around whether frequent transfer orders passed with short intervals violate established administrative guidelines and the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Zahid Akhtar's case, and whether the High Court has jurisdiction or if the matter falls within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Lahore High Court observed that the frequent transfer orders passed by the Deputy District Education Officer lacked bona fides and were tainted with extraneous considerations, reiterating that instructions regarding postings and transfers of civil servants laid down in PLD 1995 SC 530 must be strictly complied with by the authorities. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with directions sent to the Secretary Education for taking appropriate action against the responsible officer.

  Questions settled

  • Whether frequent transfer orders passed at short intervals without bona fides violate established guidelines for civil servants?
  • Does a matter pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant fall within the exclusive purview of the Service Tribunal under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and others vs Jalal Din and others2000 C.L.R. 1773 · Lahore High Court · 1999-08-25Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad (Deceased) And Another vs Mst. Rahmoon (Deceased)K.L.R. 2000 Revenue Cases 149 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Noor Bat Khan vs Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others2000 PLD Lahore 62 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-22Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad., vs Punjab, Lahore2000 YLR 1137 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-20Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad by Legal Heirs andanother vs Muhammad Hussain and 132000 YLR 558 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-18Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad and anothers vs The State2000 MLD 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-08
  sudden fightvicarious liabilitycommon objectwater disputeindividual liabilityreduction of sentenceunstained weapon recoverymurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal appeals and a murder reference arising from a trial court judgment convicting multiple accused under Sections 302/149, 148, and hurt provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of two individuals and injuries to prosecution witnesses during a sudden fight over canal water turns (Warabandi). The High Court examined whether constructive and vicarious liability under Sections 148 and 149 applied to a sudden, unpremeditated clash where both sides asserted rights and suffered injuries, and whether the death sentences ought to be confirmed. The High Court held that because the incident erupted on the spur of the moment without premeditation, Section 149 was inapplicable, and each participant was individually liable solely for their own specific acts. Recoveries of unstained weapons were discarded. Individual roles were assessed alongside the medical evidence: death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment for the primary assailants, specific hurt convictions were maintained or set aside based on witness corroboration, and remaining appellants were acquitted of capital and unlawful assembly charges.

  Questions settled

  • Can vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be invoked when a clash occurs suddenly on the spur of the moment without premeditation?
  • Whether the recovery of unstained weapons recovered in quick succession through common witnesses carries any evidentiary value?
  • Can accused persons be convicted for causing hurt to an injured witness who was given up by the prosecution and never examined at trial?
  • How is individual criminal liability determined among co-accused when constructive liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is excluded in a sudden melee?
  Read full judgment →
• Nizam-Ud-Din vs Qutab Nisar Bhatti and another2000 C.L.R. 1478 · Lahore High Court · 1999-10-04Read full judgment →
• Nishat Mills Limited vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary2000 P.C.T.L.R. 1092 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nisar Masih and 2 others vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 352 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-05
  murderattempted murderright of private defenceocular evidencecommon intentioncriminal appealcompensation to victims
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against convictions and sentences for murder and attempted murder, alongside a revision petition seeking enhancement of sentences. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, whether the appellants acted in the exercise of the right of private defence, and whether the sentences imposed were appropriate. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants through consistent ocular testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, recovery of weapons, and the admitted motive regarding a land dispute. The Court rejected the appellants' plea of self-defence, noting the lack of evidence and the failure to report the alleged injuries to authorities promptly. The Court affirmed the convictions and the death sentence for the principal offender, holding that the intention to kill was formed during the assault. The key principle laid down is that while an intention to kill can be formed at the spur of the moment, it must be decipherable from the circumstances, and the burden of proving a plea of private defence rests on the accused, which requires credible evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an intention to kill be formed at the spur of the moment?
  • Does the failure of an accused to report injuries to the police undermine a plea of private defence?
  • Is the testimony of interested witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction if corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of weapons?
  • Can a court award compensation to victims under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in cases of attempted murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Nilofer Saeed vs Arif Aslam Khan and others2000 C.L.R. 1629 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-01Read full judgment →
• Nighat Sultana vs University of Punjab through ViceChancellor, Punjab2000 YLR 511 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-11Read full judgment →
• Nighat Sultana vs University of Punjab and others2000 C.L.R. 801 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-11Read full judgment →
• Nighat Parveen vs The State2000 YLR 1428 · Lahore High Court · 2000-03-28
  post-arrest bailmurderpoisoningchemical examiner reportconfessional statementfurther inquirybail for female
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner Mst. Nighat Parveen seeking post-arrest bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 122 registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the alleged murder of her husband by administering poison. The core legal question involves whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given a negative Chemical Examiner report regarding the presence of poison and her status as a female. The Lahore High Court held that the negative report of the Chemical Examiner rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2), and further noted that as a female, her case fell under the protective purview of the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497. The court laid down the principle that extraneous considerations, such as the general upward tendency of crime in society, cannot be invoked to deny bail, and that a confessional statement recorded prior to formal registration of the FIR must be viewed with caution.

  Questions settled

  • Does a negative report from the Chemical Examiner regarding the presence of poison make a murder case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a female accused entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution evidence is weakened by forensic findings?
  • Can extraneous considerations such as the upward tendency of crime in society be used to refuse bail to an accused?
  • How is a confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to be viewed if recorded before the formal registration of the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Din vs Mirza Muhammad Ismail and others2000 C.L.R. 605 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-05Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ali vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 2012 · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-15
  murder convictioncommutation of sentenceocular evidencemitigating circumstancescompensation to legal heirscriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved a criminal appeal against a conviction and death sentence under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference and a criminal revision petition regarding the acquittal of a co-accused and the payment of compensation. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction and whether the death penalty was appropriate given the circumstances of the offense. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular evidence credible and consistent. However, the court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, noting the appellant’s youth and the fact that the fatal injury resulted from a single blow driven by a grudge over an insult to his uncle, rather than premeditated malice. The court dismissed the revision petition regarding the co-accused's acquittal but granted the request for compensation under Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The judgment affirms that while ocular testimony from related witnesses is admissible if credible, mitigating factors such as the offender's age and the absence of premeditated intent can justify the commutation of a death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment based on the offender's youth and the nature of the provocation?
  • Is the payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased mandatory upon conviction under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the ocular testimony of related witnesses remain credible in the absence of material contradictions?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmad vs Khalid Nawaz and 2 others2000 P Cr. L J 1605 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-09
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationabetmentconspiracyextraordinary concessionprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to two respondents, Khalid Nawaz and Muhammad Bakhsh, by the Additional Sessions Judge. Regarding Muhammad Bakhsh, the court noted that the allegation was conspiracy and abetment, and the lower court found insufficient material to connect him to the offense, granting him the benefit of doubt. The High Court declined to interfere with this exercise of discretion. Conversely, regarding Khalid Nawaz, the lower court had observed that even if the primary charge under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was not applicable, the respondent would still be liable under Section 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as he was armed and had physically restrained the deceased. The High Court held that having found a prima facie case and the applicability of these provisions, the lower court erred in granting the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the High Court cancelled the bail of Khalid Nawaz, while clarifying that he remained at liberty to seek post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when a court finds a prima facie case against an accused?
  • Can a court cancel pre-arrest bail if the lower court misconstrued the principles governing such relief?
  • Does the finding of a prima facie case under Section 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Nemat Ali alias Niamat Ali vs Abdul Ghaffar2000 CLC 1067 · Lahore High Court · 2000-03-10Read full judgment →
• Nazir vs The State2000 YLR 2638 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-03
  double murderdeath sentencecustodial negligenceeye-witness testimonycriminal appealpolice misconductQisas
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference concerns the conviction of Nazir for the double murder of Dost Muhammad and Manzoor, alongside a revision petition challenging the acquittal of four co-accused. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the death sentences were justified. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt through credible eye-witness testimony, despite minor discrepancies regarding the exact location of the occurrence within or near the police station. The acquittal of the co-accused was upheld as the revision petition failed to demonstrate perversity or arbitrariness. The Court affirmed the death sentences, noting the brutal, cold-blooded nature of the double murder. A key principle laid down is that minor inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative regarding the crime scene do not invalidate a conviction when the primary evidence of guilt is robust. Additionally, the Court strictly condemned the illegal practice of police utilizing suspects for labor while in custody, directing the Inspector-General of Police to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the negligent officers responsible for the custodial mismanagement that facilitated the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy regarding the exact location of a crime scene within or near a police station invalidate a conviction if the primary evidence of guilt is otherwise credible?
  • Can a court maintain death sentences for a double murder where the occurrence was a sudden affair but carried out in a brutal and cold-blooded manner?
  • Is the acquittal of co-accused persons liable to be set aside in a criminal revision if the prosecution fails to prove the acquittal was perverse or arbitrary?
  • Does the illegal use of suspects for labor by police officials create grounds for judicial intervention regarding the conduct of the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir and another vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 175 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-04
  grave and sudden provocationGhairatculpable homicidesentence reductioncriminal appealSection 302 PPCcompensation to heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revisions arose from a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution proved the alleged premeditated murder or if the defense's plea of grave and sudden provocation (Ghairat) was established. The Court found the prosecution's version of the occurrence implausible and accepted the defense's contention that the deceased was killed after being discovered in a compromising position with the accused's sister. Consequently, the Court held that the offense fell under the ambit of grave and sudden provocation. The conviction was altered from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Applying the principle that cases involving Ghairat warrant lesser penalties, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants (approximately six and a half years). Additionally, the Court maintained the fine and directed the appellants to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 302(c) when the defense of grave and sudden provocation is established?
  • Is a sentence of imprisonment for life appropriate in cases of homicide committed under the impulse of Ghairat?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to award compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 necessitate an appellate court's intervention?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed vs Mst. Jainna N (Deceased) Through L.Hs.K.L.R. 2000 Civil Cases 432 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-01Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs The State2000 YLR 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-15
  criminal appealmurdersentence reductionsudden provocationnon-lethal weaponquantum of sentencecompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Nazir Ahmad, who was found guilty by the Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, for the murder of Khushi Muhammad. The appellant was convicted under Section 302-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment, with additional compensation ordered under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned whether the conviction under Section 302-C was sustainable and whether the sentence imposed was proportionate given the circumstances of the incident, specifically the use of a non-lethal wooden plank as the weapon and the absence of premeditation. The Court held that while the conviction under Section 302-C was maintained, the maximum sentence of life imprisonment was excessive. The Court determined that the incident occurred due to sudden provocation rather than a planned murder. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and lowered the compensation amount, establishing the principle that sentencing must be commensurate with the nature of the weapon used and the presence of provocation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the use of a non-lethal weapon like a wooden plank in a homicide case warrant a reduction in the maximum sentence prescribed under Section 302-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a court maintain a conviction under Section 302-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while reducing the sentence from life imprisonment to a fixed term?
  • Is a plea of self-defence credible when the accused claims to have been struck by a weapon but shows no corresponding injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Mst. Jainna N through Legal Heirs2000 MLD 720 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-01Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs AzizahmadK.L.R. 2000 Revenue Cases 7 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, D.G. Khan and anothers2000 YLR 2291 · Lahore High Court · 2000-04-18Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad andothers vs The State2000 MLD 1358 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-10
  murdercross-versionfree fightcommon intentionbenefit of the doubtprivate defensecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of multiple criminal appeals and a criminal revision arising from a cross-version shooting and violent incident resulting in multiple deaths and injuries on both sides. The core legal questions involve determining criminal liability, common intention, and the right of private defense in a sudden mutual affray involving cross-cases. The court held that where both parties sustained numerous injuries and the occurrence arose from a sudden altercation, individual roles must be strictly scrutinized; active participants armed with deadly weapons who inflicted fatal injuries were rightly convicted, while appellants with mere presence, empty hands, or general attribution without specific fatal blows were given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted. The key principles laid down include that mere presence at the scene or a general lalkara without active participation is insufficient to sustain a murder conviction under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and individual culpability must be established beyond reasonable doubt in sudden cross-fights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere presence at the scene of a crime armed with a weapon without inflicting any injury is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder with the aid of section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a general lalkara attributed to an accused who remained empty-handed suffice for recording a murder conviction?
  • How should individual criminal liability be apportioned in a sudden mutual affray or cross-fight resulting in casualties on both sides?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and others vs Suleman and others2000 YLR 527 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-27
  power of attorneycoupled with interestrevocation of power of attorneypart performanceagreement to sellcolony landenforceability of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal arose from a suit for declaration filed by the appellants challenging the validity of an arbitration award and subsequent decree obtained by the respondents. The appellants contended that they had revoked a general power of attorney previously granted to respondent No. 1, rendering subsequent actions taken by him void. Conversely, the respondents asserted that the power of attorney was coupled with interest, arising from prior agreements to sell the suit land for which consideration had been paid and possession delivered. The core legal question was whether the power of attorney was revocable and whether the underlying agreements regarding colony land, where proprietary rights were pending, were enforceable. The Lahore High Court upheld the judgment of the District Judge, dismissing the appeal. The Court held that the power of attorney was coupled with interest and thus irrevocable. Furthermore, it affirmed that agreements to sell land, even where proprietary rights are yet to be conferred, are not void but enforceable at law, and that the respondents' possession and rights were protected under the doctrine of part performance.

  Questions settled

  • Is a general power of attorney coupled with interest revocable by the principal?
  • Are agreements to sell land, where proprietary rights have not yet been conferred, void or enforceable at law?
  • Does the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 protect a purchaser in possession under an agreement to sell?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazim Poly Sack Limited, Muslim Town, Lahore vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and 6 others2000 PLD Lahore 302 · Lahore High Court · 1999-10-19Read full judgment →
• Nazim Poly Sack Limited vs Federation of Pakistan, Through Its(2000 P.C.T.L.R. 1105) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs Mst. Surriya Sultana and anothers2000 YLR 2489 · Lahore High Court · 2000-02-15Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs Deputy Commissioner Bhakkar And Other No.K.L.R. 2000 Revenue Cases 127 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-16Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and 3 others vs The State2000 YLR 474 · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-10
  criminal revisionquantum of sentenceprotracted trialremandmitigation of sentenceperiod already undergone
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the conviction and sentencing of the petitioners, who were convicted under sections 307 and 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Magistrate Section 30, Bhalwal, with the conviction upheld on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question concerns whether, given the protracted history of the case—which involved multiple remands and three separate trials spanning over a decade—the quantum of the sentence imposed warrants judicial interference. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the conviction itself but acknowledged the extreme hardship caused by the petitioners enduring the rigors of trial and appellate proceedings three times since 1988. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioners, while maintaining the fines imposed by the trial court. The key principle established is that while a conviction may be legally sound, the court may exercise leniency in sentencing when an accused has been subjected to repeated, prolonged trials and appellate remands, causing undue agony.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone if the accused has faced multiple trials and remands?
  • Does the mere fact of a protracted trial history justify the setting aside of a conviction that is otherwise legally sound?
  • Is the appellate court empowered to modify the quantum of sentence in a criminal revision petition based on the length of time the case has remained pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain & Other vs (Mst.) Satto MaiK.L.R. 2000 Civil Cases 26 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-25Read full judgment →
• Nazar Ali and three others vs Munir Hussain and others2000 C.L.R. 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-26Read full judgment →
• Nazar Ali and 3 others vs Munir Hussain and 2 others2000 CLC 843 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-26Read full judgment →
• Nayyar Industries (Pvt) Limited through Chief Executive vs through Chairman and another Punjar Cooperative Board for Liquidation2000 CLC 708 · Lahore High Court · 2000-01-22Read full judgment →
• Nawash Shoaib vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Health, Lahore and anothers2000 YLR 1840 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nawab Khan and others vs Rehmat Bibi and others2000 YLR 621 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-21
  inheritancevoid mutationlimitationco-ownershipestoppelMuslim Lawadverse possessioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenges the concurrent dismissal of a suit for inheritance by the lower courts, which held the claim time-barred and barred by estoppel. The core legal questions concerned whether a suit challenging a void inheritance mutation is subject to limitation and whether the plaintiffs were estopped from claiming their share due to prior conduct. The High Court held that the mutation excluding the petitioners was void, and there is no limitation for challenging such a void instrument. Furthermore, the Court established that co-heirs in joint possession are not subject to limitation unless ouster is proven. It was also held that merely witnessing a sale deed does not create estoppel regarding the witness's own title, especially when the sale is within the seller's share. The Court emphasized that under Muslim Law, inheritance rights vest immediately upon death, requiring no mutation for acquisition. Consequently, the revision was allowed, the lower courts' judgments were set aside, and the suit was decreed, affirming the petitioners' rights as co-heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit challenging a void mutation of inheritance subject to the law of limitation?
  • Does the attestation of a sale deed as a witness by a co-heir create estoppel against their claim to inheritance?
  • Can a claim for inheritance by a co-heir in joint possession be dismissed on the grounds of limitation?
  • Does the acquisition of proprietary rights by inheritance under Muslim Law require a mutation entry?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Khan And Other vs Rehmat Bibi And OtherK.L.R. 2000 Revenue Cases 160 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-21Read full judgment →
• Nawab Ali and 2 others vs Muhammad Sharif and 5 others2000 C.L.R. 1246 · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-09Read full judgment →
• Nausher and another vs The State2000 YLR 144 · Lahore High Court · 2000-01-17
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionfurther inquiryblunt weapon injuriesmurdercriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two petitioners, Nausher and Javed Iqbal, who were charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for their alleged involvement in a murder case and murderous assault. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who were alleged to have caused only blunt weapon injuries to the injured witnesses rather than the fatal injury to the deceased, were entitled to bail pending trial. The Court observed that the petitioners were not responsible for the firearm injury that caused the death of the deceased and that the extent of their liability regarding the application of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning common intention and facilitation, remained a matter for the trial court to determine after evidence is recorded. Holding that the petitioners had established a case for further inquiry, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not alleged to have caused the fatal injury and their role in the common intention is subject to evidentiary determination, they are entitled to bail for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Are accused persons entitled to bail when they are not alleged to have caused the fatal injury in a murder case?
  • Does the application of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically preclude the grant of bail to an accused who did not inflict the fatal wound?
  • Is the determination of whether an accused's actions constituted facilitation of a crime a matter for the trial court rather than the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• National Development Leasing Corporation Ltd. vs Chairman, Banking2000 YLR 1769 · Lahore High Court · 2000-06-12Read full judgment →
• National Cooperative Supply Corporation Ltd. through Mr. IslamMadni, General Manager vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 3 others2000 PTD 811 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-02Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan, Lahore vs Muhammad Akram Khan and 172000 CLC 1493 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-21
  pecuniary jurisdictionforum of appealvaluation of suitdecretal amountreturn of appealretrospective applicationprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a recovery suit originally valued at Rs. 1,38,869.13 filed in 1958, which was ultimately decreed by the trial court in 1998 for Rs. 11,15,941.44. The appellant bank filed a first appeal before the High Court on the basis of the decretal amount. The respondents moved an application under Section 151 read with Section 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance 1962, seeking return or dismissal of the appeal for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, arguing that following Act V of 1986, the appellate forum was the District Judge as the suit's original valuation was under Rs. 200,000. The High Court allowed the application and returned the appeal for presentation before the competent court. The Court held that appellate jurisdiction under Section 18 is determined strictly by the valuation of the suit as stated in the plaint, not by the eventual decretal amount. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that a statutory change in pecuniary jurisdiction and appellate forum is procedural in nature and applies retrospectively without impairing any vested right.

  Questions settled

  • Is the forum of appeal determined by the valuation of the suit stated in the plaint or by the final decretal amount passed by the trial court?
  • Does an amendment enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court under Section 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 operate retrospectively?
  • Does a change in the statutory forum of appeal impair any vested right of a party to a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Muhammad Akram Khan and others2000 C.L.R. 1464 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-21Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Fatima Food Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.2000 P.C.T.L.R. 364 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-20Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Fatima Food Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.2000 CLC 729 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-11Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah vs The District Judge, Khushab and anothers2000 YLR 703 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-16Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah Khan vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 452 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-30
  narcoticsillegal possession of charasreduction of sentencefirst offendercriminal appealpolice testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995, by the Sessions Judge, Islamabad, acting as a Special Court. The core legal question concerns the quantum of sentence and whether leniency should be extended to a first-time offender found in possession of narcotics. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of 980 grams of Charas from the appellant's possession through consistent and reliable police testimony. While upholding the conviction on merits as unchallenged, the court accepted the prayer for leniency regarding the sentence. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may exercise discretion to reduce a sentence to the period already undergone, coupled with a modified fine, to afford a young, first-time offender an opportunity for reformation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of police officials can be relied upon for conviction in narcotics cases when the accused is a stranger to them?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by considering the status of the accused as a first offender?
  • Whether the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is applicable upon conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasreen Zahra vs Government of Punjab and others2000 YLR 419 · Lahore High Court · 1999-10-25Read full judgment →
• Nasir vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 165 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-10
  post-arrest bailineffective firingvicarious liabilityfurther inquirymurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, in connection with a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have fired a weapon that did not strike the deceased, was entitled to bail given the nature of his participation and the duration of his incarceration. The Court observed that the petitioner's fire was ineffective and did not cause any injury to the deceased, with the fatal injury attributed to a co-accused. Furthermore, the weapon recovered was a licensed firearm. The Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry as contemplated by Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, emphasizing that the determination of vicarious liability is a matter to be settled during the trial, and ineffective firing does not automatically preclude the grant of bail when the statutory requirements for further inquiry are met.

  Questions settled

  • Does ineffective firing by an accused in a murder case entitle them to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • Is the determination of vicarious liability a ground for refusing bail in a murder case?
  • Does the recovery of a licensed weapon impact the consideration of bail for an accused charged with murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Hussain vs Masjid Bilal And OtherK.L.R. 2000 Civil Cases 455 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ali vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 8 others2000 YLR 225 · Lahore High Court · 2000-02-04Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmed and another vs The State2000 YLR 1197 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-20
  post-arrest bailmurdercommon intentioncross-versionfurther inquiryprinciple of consistencysuppression of injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition seeks post-arrest bail for the petitioners involved in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to bail on the grounds of consistency with a co-accused who was already granted bail, being attributed only a lalkara while empty-handed, and the existence of a cross-version making the matter one of further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners stand on a better footing than the co-accused, noting that the initial investigation supported a cross-version and injuries on the person of one petitioner were suppressed in the first information report. The court laid down the principle that suppression of injuries on an accused can be considered for the limited purpose of bail, and questions of aggressor and vicarious liability are to be determined during trial, thereby granting post-arrest bail to the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused attributed only a lalkara while empty-handed is entitled to post-arrest bail on the rule of consistency when a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail?
  • Can the suppression of injuries on the person of an accused be considered at the bail stage?
  • Does the existence of a conflicting police investigation regarding a cross-version make a case one of further inquiry under criminal law?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad and another vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others2000 CLC 1348 · Lahore High Court · 2000-02-16Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad alias Muhammad Iqbal alias Baloo vs The State2000 YLR 823 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-04
  post-arrest bailZina-bil-Jabrcorroborative evidenceChemical Examiner reportdelay in F.I.R.procedural compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who is charged with the offence of Zina-bil-Jabr under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the arguments regarding the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the lack of independent eye-witnesses, the absence of violence marks on the victim, and the delayed medico-legal examination. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage. The ratio of the decision is that the victim's statement, corroborated by a positive Chemical Examiner's report, provided sufficient evidence to link the petitioner to the alleged offence for the purposes of bail. The Court emphasized that arguments concerning the merits of the case, such as the reliability of witnesses and the delay in reporting, are matters to be determined during the trial rather than at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court noted the importance of strict compliance with procedural requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by police officials regarding the submission of challans.

  Questions settled

  • Does a positive Chemical Examiner's report provide sufficient corroboration to deny bail in a Zina-bil-Jabr case?
  • Can arguments regarding the credibility of witnesses and the delay in lodging an F.I.R. be adjudicated during the bail stage?
  • Is the absence of marks of violence on a victim sufficient grounds to grant bail in a rape case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nam Ahmed and others vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Finance Department, Lahore and another2000 C.L.R. 716 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-30Read full judgment →
• Naghmana Subhan vs Islamia University through ViceChancellor and 32000 YLR 1700 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Naghmana Subhan vs Islam Ia University, Bahawalpur through ViceChancellor and 3 others2000 YLR 1735 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nadim Nazir and another vs The Chairman, Board of Intermediate &2000 C.L.R. 21 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-23Read full judgment →
• Noor Din and others vs Khushi Muhammad and another2000 MLD 1427 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-14
  revision petitionagreement to selladverse inferencepossessionevidentiary valueQanun-e-Shahadat Ordernon-registration
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which decreed a suit for possession of a house in favor of the respondent based on an agreement to sell. The core legal question concerned the admissibility and evidentiary value of an unregistered agreement to sell executed prior to the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and whether the failure of the defendant to appear in the witness box justified an adverse inference. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the agreement was sufficiently proved through the testimony of a marginal witness. The Court affirmed that non-registration of such an agreement does not vitiate its evidentiary value and that the strict attestation requirements of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 do not apply retrospectively to documents executed before its enforcement. Furthermore, the Court established that a party’s failure to testify in rebuttal to evidence presented against them allows the court to draw an adverse inference. Consequently, the concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld as legally sound and based on proper appreciation of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-registration of an agreement to sell invalidate its evidentiary value?
  • Is the production of two marginal witnesses mandatory for documents executed prior to the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against a party who fails to appear in the witness box to rebut evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Sarwar vs Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Hafizabad and 2 others2000 YLR 756 · Lahore High Court · 2000-01-13
  writ jurisdictionF.I.R. quashmentinvestigation procedurestatutory duty of policecriminal investigationpenal code applicability
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by an accused person seeking the deletion of Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 from an F.I.R., arguing that the provision was not applicable to the alleged facts. Additionally, the petitioner alleged that the Investigating Officer failed to associate him with the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is not the appropriate forum to direct the deletion of specific penal sections from an F.I.R. The Court clarified that the narrative part of the F.I.R. constitutes the real substance, and any objections regarding the applicability of specific sections should be raised before the Investigating Officer, during bail proceedings, or at the trial stage. Regarding the second grievance, the Court affirmed that it is the statutory duty of an Investigating Officer to associate the accused with the investigation and record their version of the incident. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition with the observation that the petitioner should approach the Investigating Officer to present his version and raise his legal objections.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 to order the deletion of a specific section of the Pakistan Penal Code from an F.I.R.?
  • Is it the statutory duty of an Investigating Officer to associate an accused person with the investigation and record their version of the incident?
  • What is the proper forum for an accused to challenge the applicability of a penal section invoked in an F.I.R.?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Mohsan Qizilbash vs University of Punjab through Vice-2000 PLD Lahore 344 · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-31Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Khurshid vs Muhammad Saleem Bhatti and anothers2000 YLR 604 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-25Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Khurshid (Chief Executive Knitwear) vs Muhammad Saleem2000 C.L.R. 1934 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nadeem Akhtar vs The State2000 YLR 2972 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-10
  murderinsanity pleaschizophreniaocular evidencecompensationcriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the murder of his paternal uncle's spouse, Mst. Munawar Fatima, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant raised a plea of unsound mind, claiming schizophrenia, and argued that the trial court failed to conduct a proper inquiry under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution relied on ocular testimony, medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon. The Court held that the plea of insanity was an afterthought, noting that the trial court had already addressed the issue during the framing of the charge and found the appellant capable of making his defense. The Court found the prosecution's evidence credible, unimpeached, and corroborated by medical reports. The defense witnesses regarding the appellant's mental health were deemed unreliable due to a lack of medical records and inconsistent testimony. Consequently, the conviction was upheld. The Court also exercised its power under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to impose compensation upon the appellant for the legal heirs of the deceased.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plea of unsound mind raised for the first time after the framing of charges can be considered a valid ground for setting aside a conviction?
  • Is the testimony of a medical practitioner regarding a patient's mental health reliable if it lacks supporting clinical records or history?
  • Can an appellate court impose compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial court failed to do so in its original judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s.) Word Trade Corp. vs C.B.R.2000 P.C.T.L.R. 325 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-19Read full judgment →
• M/s.) Vulcan Co. (Pvt). Ltd. vs The Collector of Customs And Others(2000 P.C.T.L.R. 595) · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-06Read full judgment →
• M/s.) United Steel Corporation And Others vs Muslim Commercial Bank2000 P.C.T.L.R. 408 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s.) Tata Textile Mills vs Assistant Collector, Etc.(2000 P.C.T.L.R. 620) · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-07Read full judgment →
• M/s.) Riaz Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue2000 P.C.T.L.R. 302 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• M/s. Zahoor Textile Mills vs Chairman C.B.R, And Others(2000 P.C.T.L.R. 605) · Lahore High Court · 1999-10-06Read full judgment →
• M/s. World Trade Corporation vs C.B.R. And OtherPTCL 2000 CL. 146 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-19Read full judgment →
• M/s. United International Associates ' vs Province of the PunjabK.L.R. 2000 Civil Cases 457 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Superior Textile Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan Through(2000 P.C.T.L.R. 1014) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Sheikh Spinning Mills Ltd. vs WAPDA Etc.K.L.R. 2000 Civil Cases 362 · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-17Read full judgment →
• M/s. Shahi Bottlers Limited vs The C.I.T. Central Zone, Lahore(2000 P.C.T.L.R. 1128) · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
• M/s. Shah Jewana Textile Mills Ltd. vs United Bank Ltd.(2000 P.C.T.L.R. 1065) · Lahore High Court · 1999-10-25Read full judgment →
• M/s. Riaz Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation Of PakistanPTCL 2000 CL. 1 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-16Read full judgment →
• M/s. Riaz Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd vs Central Board of Revenue and othersPTCL 2000 CL. 455 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-02Read full judgment →
• M/s. Raja Industries Ltd. vs Government of Punjab And Others(2000 P.C.T.L.R. 1057) · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-12Read full judgment →