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.

• Solvex (Pakistan) Ltd. Through Managing Director vs Market Committee, Multan Through Administrator And 2 Other1999 CLC 49 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-04Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1980 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-31Read full judgment →
• Siraj Din vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1462 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-05Read full judgment →
• Siemen Pakistan Engineering Company Limited vs The Province of Punjab through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Punjab, Provincial Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others1999 PTD 1070 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-02Read full judgment →
• Siemen Pakis'fan Engineering Company Limited vs The Province of Punjab through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Punjab, Provincial Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 244 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-02
  profession taxprovincial legislative competencetax ceiling limitationultra virescharging sectionconstitutional validityincome tax
  Summary & questions settled

  Writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of the amendment made to the Second Schedule of the Punjab Finance Act 1977 by the Punjab Finance Act 1997, which imposed a tax on companies at the rate of 1% of net income-tax payable subject to a minimum of Rs. 200. The petitioners contended that the levy encroached on federal legislative powers over income-tax, exceeded constitutional limits under Article 163 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and traversed the scope of the charging section. The High Court held that while Article 163 creates a legal fiction allowing provincial taxes on professions, trades, callings, or employments without being treated as income-tax, such power is strictly subject to limits fixed by Parliament. Since the Professions Tax Limitation Act 1941 fixed the maximum ceiling at Rs. 50 per annum, the provincial legislature lacked jurisdiction to levy any amount beyond Rs. 50. The Court further ruled that the taxable event is the engagement in a profession or trade, meaning the schedule could not compute the levy based on income-tax paid.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 163 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 preclude a Provincial Legislature from levying a profession tax exceeding the statutory limit fixed by federal law?
  • Is the Professions Tax Limitation Act 1941 an existing law preserved under Article 268 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the schedule to a provincial taxation statute base the rate of profession tax on the net income-tax paid by an assessee when the charging section levies tax only on engaging in a trade, profession, calling, or employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheraz Anwar vs Baha Ud Din Zakariya University of Multan And Other1999 CLC 720 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-28Read full judgment →
• Shera vs (Mst.) Bafflshtan And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 308 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-20Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad. vs The State1999 MLD 1758 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 109 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-27Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Pakistan and 6 others1999 P Cr. L J 1191 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-08Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad And Others vs Fateh Muhammad1999 CLC 846 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-17Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 457 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
• Sher alias Shera and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1643 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-01
  post-arrest bailcattle theftprohibitory clausediscretionary reliefcriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by two accused persons charged under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an allegation of cattle theft. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite allegations of involvement in other criminal cases. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail. The Court observed that the offence under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making the grant of bail the rule and its refusal the exception. Furthermore, the Court found the prosecution's reliance on a list of other alleged cases to be unreliable due to procedural irregularities in the documentation. The Court established the principle that a bail application must be adjudicated strictly within the framework of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, based on relevant and available material, rather than on extraneous or unverified allegations of prior criminal involvement.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a bail application be rejected based on a list of other alleged cases that lacks proper authentication or relevance?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and its refusal the exception for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Safdar Rashid vs Director Local Government and Rural1999 PLC (C.S.) 963 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-10Read full judgment →
• Shehbaz Ahmad vs Munawar Hussain1999 YLR 1850 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-26Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Khan vs The State1999 MLD 957 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hayat vs Mst. Sahib Khatoon1999 YLR 666 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hayat and 2 others vs The State1999 YLR 1780 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-31Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali, Chief Corporation Officer, Multan vs Chairman, Punjab1999 PLC (C.S.) 637 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-23
  constitutional petitiontransfer ordercivil servantterms and conditions of servicebar of jurisdictionService Tribunalpolitical interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a civil servant challenging his transfer order on the grounds of political interference and violation of the transfer policy. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Lahore High Court examined whether it possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate transfer disputes of civil servants. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that postings and transfers are matters directly relatable to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 is expressly barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court observed that grievances concerning violations of transfer policies or allegations of political influence must be addressed before the competent departmental authority or the Service Tribunal. The petition was accordingly dismissed as incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to entertain a petition challenging the transfer of a civil servant?
  • Does a dispute regarding the transfer or posting of a civil servant relate to the terms and conditions of service?
  • Whether allegations of political interference or violation of transfer policies can bypass the jurisdictional bar of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Mst. Razia Bibi And Other1999 CLC 62 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-05
  specific performanceagreement to sellbona fide purchasernotice of agreementregistered sale-deedspeaking judgmentsuo motu revisionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property. The plaintiff asserted that defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell a 4-Marla plot to him but subsequently executed a registered sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 2, who allegedly purchased the plot despite having notice of the prior agreement. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the Appellate Court reversed this decree on appeal, holding that a registered sale-deed takes precedence over a mere agreement to sell. The Lahore High Court exercised its suo motu revisional jurisdiction and set aside the Appellate Court's judgment. The High Court held that the Appellate Court failed to consider Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1877—specifically whether the subsequent purchaser was a bona fide transferee for value without notice—and failed to comply with Order XLI Rule 31 and Order XX Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The matter was remanded to the District Judge for fresh determination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can set aside a decree without deciding whether a subsequent purchaser is a transferee for value without notice under Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Whether an appellate judgment that fails to address individual issues and evidence complies with Order XLI Rule 31 and Order XX Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a registered sale-deed automatically defeat a prior agreement to sell without evaluating the bona fides of the subsequent transferee?
  • What constitutes a non-speaking or perfunctory judicial order that fails the test of proper legal adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs (Mst.) Razia Begum And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 138 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-14Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Mian, Etc. vs Federation of Pakistan1999 P.C.T.L.R. 865 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-27Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Mian And Another vs The Federation of Pakistan1999 CLC 607 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-27
  foreign currency accountsconstitutional petitionintra-court appealright to propertyexcessive delegationequal protection of lawemergency powersjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This litigation comprises 67 Intra-Court Appeals and 50 Constitution Petitions challenging the validity of the Foreign Exchange (Temporary Restrictions) Act IV of 1998 and State Bank of Pakistan Circular No. 23 of 1998. These measures restricted the rights of foreign currency account holders to withdraw, transfer, or hold foreign exchange, effectively freezing accounts. The core legal questions concerned whether these legislative and executive actions violated the constitutional right to equality under Article 4 and Article 2A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether they constituted an impermissible delegation of legislative authority. The Full Bench held that Section 2 of the Act and Circular No. 23 were ultra vires the Constitution. The court ruled that the Act conferred naked, arbitrary, and unstructured power upon the State Bank, violating the doctrine of equality. Key principles laid down include that even during a state of emergency, executive actions must remain subject to judicial review for compliance with the Constitution, and that executive circulars cannot retrospectively impair vested contractual rights or confiscate property without fair compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suspension of rights to operate foreign currency accounts under the Foreign Exchange (Temporary Restrictions) Act IV of 1998 violate the constitutional right to equality?
  • Can an executive circular issued by the State Bank of Pakistan retrospectively impair vested contractual rights between banks and account holders?
  • Does the conferment of unguided, arbitrary power on the State Bank of Pakistan to permit or restrict foreign exchange withdrawals constitute an impermissible delegation of legislative authority?
  • Is the State Bank of Pakistan empowered to unilaterally liquidate foreign currency collateral against rupee loans at a fixed rate without fair compensation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali And Others vs Jalal Ud Din And Other1999 CLC 1396 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-17Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 658 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
• Shauicat Ali and others vs The State1999 YLR 214 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
• Sharif and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 871 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Sharafat Ali Nisar vs The Punjab Local Councils Election Authority, 100,Shadman, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 15 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sharafat Ali Nisar vs Punjab Local Councils Election Authority and 31999 MLD 1814 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-07
  election disputefunctus officioelection authorityelection tribunalre-polllocal government electionstatutory jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Punjab Local Councils Election Authority directing a re-poll for an electoral unit due to an alleged illegality regarding the allotment of election symbols. The core legal question was whether the Election Authority retains jurisdiction to order a re-poll after an election has been held, or if such disputes fall exclusively within the domain of an Election Tribunal. The Court held that once an election has been conducted, the Election Authority becomes functus officio regarding the validity of the election process. The ratio is that any illegality or irregularity in the election, including the failure of a Returning Officer to comply with statutory rules, must be challenged through an election petition before an Election Tribunal, as provided by the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Court affirmed that the Election Authority's supervisory powers are limited to pre-election matters and specific instances of interrupted polls under Rule 28, and cannot be invoked to declare an election void or order a re-poll after the election process has concluded.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Election Authority retain jurisdiction to order a re-poll after an election has been held?
  • Can the Election Authority declare an election void due to irregularities in the allotment of election symbols?
  • Is the Election Authority's jurisdiction to interfere in election disputes barred once the election process has concluded?
  • Does the non-publication of election results in the official Gazette confer jurisdiction on the Election Authority to adjudicate election disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsul Arifin and others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and others1999 MLD 3446 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-09Read full judgment →
• Shamsher Ali alias Shams Din vs Station House Officer, Police Station1999 YLR 1404 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-01Read full judgment →
• Shamim Akhtar vs Ghulam Ali1999 YLR 2405 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-01Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad vs The State1999 MLD 679 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-03Read full judgment →
• Shahtaj Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Province of Punjab And Others1999 P.C.T.L.R. 93 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
• Shahmand alias Shamma vs The State1999 MLD 1293 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
• Shahida Paryeen vs Sami Ullah1999 CLC 1863 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-29Read full judgment →
• Shahid Raza Bhatti vs Magistrate Section 30, District Courts, Rawalpindi and 2 others1999 MLD 1847 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-10
  physical remanddischarge of accusedMagistrate powerspolice investigationwrit petitionremand refusalcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional writ petition was filed by the complainant challenging the order of a Magistrate (Respondent No. 1) dated 15-06-1998, whereby the Magistrate refused police remand and discharged the accused (Respondent No. 2) in a case registered under Section 381-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether a Magistrate, while acting under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon the initial production of an accused for physical remand, possesses the jurisdiction to discharge the accused. The High Court held that Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 only empowers the Magistrate to either grant physical remand or refuse it and authorize judicial custody; it does not confer the power to discharge an accused. The Court further clarified that Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 did not apply to justify such an order at the very inception of investigation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Magistrate's discharge order as illegal, unjustified, and untenable.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate exercising powers under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 have the jurisdiction to discharge an accused person upon initial production?
  • Can an order of discharge be passed under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an accused is produced before a Magistrate for physical remand under Section 167?
  • What are the options available to a Magistrate under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when physical remand is requested by the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Rashid vs Nasir Siddique Alvi and 5 others1999 PLD Lahore 181 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
• Shahid Pirzada and another vs The State1999 YLR 2678 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-21Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mehmood vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 171 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-11Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mahmood Alias Pappu vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 510 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-01Read full judgment →
• Shahid alias Shadoo vs The State1999 YLR 552 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-21Read full judgment →
• Shahbazuddin Chaudhry and 3 others vs The Director, F.I.A., C.B.C., Lahore and 2 others1999 YLR 678 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-21
  FIA jurisdictionbanking fraudquashment of FIRfugitive from lawinterpretation of statutesmischief rulescheduled banks
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two writ petitions seeking the quashment of an F.I.R. registered by the Federal Investigation Agency and an order directing the F.I.A. not to inquire into the subject matter of another police F.I.R., respectively. The core legal question revolves around the jurisdiction of the F.I.A. to investigate offenses involving private banking companies and loan transactions under the Federal Investigating Agency Act, 1974, particularly interpreting the expression 'matters concerning the Federal Government' in the preamble in light of the statute's schedule. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that offenses related to scheduled banks and financial institutions under the administrative control or regulation of the State Bank of Pakistan fall squarely within the F.I.A.'s jurisdiction by virtue of the schedule appended to the F.I.A. Act, 1974. The Court laid down the principle that the preamble of a statute must be interpreted using a purposive 'mischief rule' approach alongside the enacting parts and the schedule, and further reiterated that a fugitive from justice who has been declared a proclaimed offender has no right of audience before the court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Investigating Agency have jurisdiction to investigate offenses relating to private banking companies and financial institutions under the Federal Investigating Agency Act, 1974?
  • Can the preamble of a statute be construed narrowly to restrict the operative provisions and the schedule of the enactment?
  • Does a petitioner who has been declared a proclaimed offender and fails to surrender to the process of law retain a right of audience in constitutional petitions?
  • Does the filing of a civil suit for the recovery of a loan bar the registration and investigation of a criminal case involving fraud and criminal breach of trust arising from the same transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz-Ud-Din Chaudhry And Others vs The Director F.I.A. CBC, Lahore And Others1999 P.C.T.L.R. 400 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shahbaz and 5 others vs Mehr Muhammad and 6 others1999 MLD 1140 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-22Read full judgment →
• Shahban and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 351 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-17Read full judgment →
• Shah Wali vs Allah Bakhsh1999 CLC 45 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-26
  re-admission of appealdismissal for non-prosecutioncondonation of delaynegligence of counselsufficient causelimitationappellant diligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a civil miscellaneous petition seeking the re-admission of a Regular First Appeal that was dismissed for non-prosecution, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of a delay of 119 days. The core legal questions relate to whether the negligence of a counsel constitutes a sufficient cause for the restoration of an appeal and the condonation of delay, and whether an appellant is absolved of their duty to diligently prosecute a case merely by engaging a lawyer. The Lahore High Court held that the negligence of a counsel is not a sufficient cause for restoration or condonation of delay, and that litigants bear an independent obligation to remain vigilant and keep in touch with their counsel regarding the proceedings. The Court established that an appellant who remains inactive and fails to inquire about their appeal for months is guilty of gross negligence and lack of bona fides, and thus not entitled to discretionary relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does the negligence of a counsel constitute a sufficient cause for the re-admission of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Does the engagement of a counsel absolve a litigant from the responsibility of diligently prosecuting their appeal?
  • Can delay in filing a petition for the re-admission of an appeal be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 without showing sufficient cause?
  • Is an unexplained silence and failure of an appellant to inquire about their case for several months considered gross negligence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz and 3 others vs Lahore Development Authority through Director-General, L.D.A. and 50 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1320 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-05
  seniority listdiploma engineersgraduate engineersdepartmental representationswrit petitionmaster and servantpublic functionaries
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, who are Diploma Engineers holding the post of Sub-Divisional Officers in BS-17 within the Lahore Development Authority, filed a constitutional writ petition challenging the preparation and maintenance of separate seniority lists for Diploma Engineers and Graduate Engineers, which excluded Diploma Holders from consideration for promotion to BS-18. The petitioners had submitted departmental representations to the authorities between December 1993 and April 1994, which remained undecided. The respondents contested the maintainability of the writ petition on grounds including master-and-servant principles, the non-statutory nature of regulations, and the binding effect of a prior civil court judgment. The Lahore High Court held that public functionaries are under a constitutional duty and obligation under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to address and decide citizens' grievances and representations within a reasonable time, and that the writ petition was maintainable. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition with a direction to the relevant respondent authority to decide the pending representations of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law within one month.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against the failure of public functionaries to decide departmental representations regarding seniority lists?
  • Does the principle of master-and-servant bar a writ petition when public authorities fail to act in accordance with law?
  • Are public functionaries legally bound to decide representations submitted by citizens within a reasonable time under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz alias Shadu vs The State1999 YLR 1378 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-27Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1105 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-29
  post-arrest bailLalkaraprohibitory clausefurther inquiryactive participationcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Shah Muhammad, who is accused of involvement in a criminal case registered under Section 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was alleged to have transported the co-accused to the crime scene on his tractor and instigated the shooting by raising a Lalkara. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who allegedly did not cause direct physical injury but facilitated the commission of the offence, was entitled to bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner played an active role in the commission of the offence by transporting the co-accused and facilitating the incident. The Court determined that the case did not fall under the category of 'further inquiry' and that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, affirming that active participation in the commission of a serious crime precludes the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the act of transporting co-accused to the scene of a crime and raising a Lalkara constitute active participation sufficient to deny bail?
  • Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically preclude the grant of bail?
  • Is a case of alleged facilitation of a crime considered a case of 'further inquiry' for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Ali vs The State1999 MLD 2940 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-22Read full judgment →
• Shafiqan Bibi vs Senior Civil Judge/Judge, Family Court, Okara And1999 CLC 160 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-13
  Khuladissolution of marriagedowermaintenancereturn of benefitsfamily law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner wife instituted suits for recovery of maintenance, dower, and dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula'. The Family Court decreed all suits on 2-5-1997, but conditioned the dissolution of marriage on the petitioner forfeiting her claim to dower and past maintenance as consideration for Khula'. The petitioner challenged this condition via a writ petition before the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions were whether a Khula' decree can be made conditional on the return of benefits when the husband has not demanded them, and whether past maintenance constitutes a returnable benefit. The High Court held that while dower is a benefit received from the husband and is returnable as consideration for Khula', past maintenance is not a benefit received from the husband but rather a legal obligation for sustenance during wedlock, and therefore it is not returnable. The Court laid down the principle that past maintenance cannot be made a condition for the grant of Khula' and remains recoverable by the wife.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a decree dissolving marriage on the basis of Khula' can be passed without the return of benefits when the husband has not made a demand for their return?
  • Is past maintenance allowance a benefit returnable as consideration for a decree of Khula'?
  • Can a wife be required to relinquish her right to previously decreed dower as a condition for the dissolution of marriage through Khula'?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafiqan Bibi vs Senior Civil Judge Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-13Read full judgment →
• Shafiq Ahmed vs Member, Board of Revenue and 3 others1999 MLD 3252 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-20Read full judgment →
• Shabhir Hussain vs D.C. Sargodha And OtherK.L.R 1999 Civil Cases 120 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-20Read full judgment →
• Shabeer Ahmad alias Shibli vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1348 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-26
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseexceptional circumstancespermanent disabilityhurtbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 337-F(v) read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Channi Goth, District Bahawalpur. The core legal question is whether an accused charged with an offense not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be denied bail due to exceptional circumstances. The Lahore High Court held that notwithstanding the offense falling outside the prohibitory clause, bail may be refused in extraordinary circumstances, such as the petitioner inflicting injuries resulting in permanent disability and multiple surgeries to the complainant. The court laid down the principle that the exceptional circumstances warranting the refusal of bail in non-prohibitory offenses are not exhaustive, and the gravity and nature of the injury can justify the denial of bail. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with observations regarding moving for bail afresh under certain conditions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be refused for an offense not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are the extraordinary and exhaustive circumstances for refusing bail as outlined in Tariq Bashir's case exhaustive?
  • Does causing a permanent disability through a physical injury constitute an exceptional circumstance to deny post-arrest bail?
  • Can an accused seek bail afresh before the trial court after the recording of material evidence or upon delay in the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 351 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed vs The State1999 YLR 1115 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-16Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 304 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-14Read full judgment →
• Sh. Saeed vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 959 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-22Read full judgment →
• SH. Mustaq Ali, Advocate vs Khalid Anwan And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 214 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-07Read full judgment →
• Sh. Mahboob Ahmad vs S.H.O., Police Station Rail Bazar, Faisalabad and others1999 PLD Lahore 390 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-13Read full judgment →
• Sh. Karim Dad and others vs Assistant Commissioner and others1999 MLD 2371 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-03Read full judgment →
• SH. Ghulam Muhammad And Others vs Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Muridke, through Nazir Ahmad, Manager1999 P.C.T.L.R. 87 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sattar (Abdus Sattar) vs Mst. Salma Bibi and 18 others.1999 YLR 2351 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-19Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Sewing Machine vs WAPDA1999 CLC 1540 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-22Read full judgment →
• Sardar Wajid Ali vs Abdul Shakoor And 2 Other1999 CLC 858 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-01Read full judgment →
• Sardar Sultan Ahmad vs Ch. Muhammad Mushtaq, Station House1999 P Cr. L J 592 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-02Read full judgment →
• Sardar Shujah Ullah vs Lahore Development Authority Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 452 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-04Read full judgment →
• Sardar Shamshad Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 565 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-08Read full judgment →
• Sardar Rehmat Ullah Dogar vs Additional District Judge, Kasur1999 MLD 2847 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-14Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Sharif Dogar and another vs The State1999 YLR 2146 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-23Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Saeed Khan vs The Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore1999 YLR 997 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-28Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Nasim vs Sajjad HussainK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 133 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-25Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad and 14 others vs Mst. Jantey and others1999 YLR 1928 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-24Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan vs The State1999 MLD 1918 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-28Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 3147 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-29Read full judgment →
• Saqib alias Saqi and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 800 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-06Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs The State1999 YLR 346 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-18Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah and 3 others vs The State1999 YLR 815 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-06Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 546 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-08Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah Khan and another vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1113 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
• Sami Ul Haq vs Dr. Maqbool Hussain Butt And 2 Other1999 CLC 899 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-16Read full judgment →
• Salman Riaz Chaudhry vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1999 YLR 1229 · Lahore High Court
  unfair meansdisciplinary committeematriculation examinationeducational malpracticejudicial reviewconstitutional jurisdictionaward list discrepancy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, which disqualified him from passing his Matriculation examination and appearing in the next two examinations due to the use of unfair means. The allegation was that the petitioner solved a question in his Chemistry paper outside the examination hall, evidenced by discrepancies in the award lists and the use of different ink colors on his answer sheet. The petitioner argued that the charge was unsupported by evidence, that witnesses were examined in his absence, and that he was denied a fair opportunity to defend himself. The Court reviewed the evidence, noting that the initial award list signed by examiners showed the question was not attempted, while a subsequent alteration inflated the marks. Distinguishing the case from precedents where candidates were exonerated due to lack of evidence or specific mitigating circumstances, the Court held that the Board's findings were supported by material evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the Disciplinary Committee's decision was based on cogent evidence and procedural fairness.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction substitute its own findings for those of an educational board's disciplinary committee?
  • Is a disciplinary committee required to follow the strict procedural rules applicable to courts of plenary jurisdiction?
  • Does the alteration of marks in an award list and the use of different ink on an answer sheet constitute sufficient evidence of unfair means in an examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 199 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-01Read full judgment →
• Saleem Saeed Qureshi vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 52 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
• Saleem Baig vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1746 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-14Read full judgment →
• Salamat Ali And Other vs S.H.O. Sadar Arifwala And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 350 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-17Read full judgment →
• Sakhi Ahmed Khan vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1999 MLD 3410 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-22Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Hussain Shah and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 279 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-22Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Ali vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 450 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-30Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Ali Etc. vs Deputy Commissioner Chairman RecruitmentK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 78 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 64 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-22Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs S.H.O., Police Station Khairpur Sadaat and others1999 P Cr. L J 322 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-26Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Haider vs Imam Bakhsh and others1999 MLD 2472 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-31Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Haider vs Collector/D.C. Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 132 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-25Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad and 4 others vs Secretary, Irrigation and Power1999 MLD 3256 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-24Read full judgment →
• Sajid Zaman and 2 others vs Muhammad Yaqoob and others1999 YLR 2716 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-04Read full judgment →
• Sajid Naveed vs The State1999 MLD 156 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-24Read full judgment →
• Saira Bano vs The Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary1999 YLR 1421 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-05Read full judgment →