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.

• Mst. Farhat Bibi and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1586 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fakharunnisa vs S.H.O., Police Station Jatoi, District1999 PLD Lahore 396 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bushra Mughal vs Additional District Judge, Kharian and others1999 MLD 2960 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bevi and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1451 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bashiran Bibi vs Mst. Fatima Jan and 11 others1999 MLD 869 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Balqees Begum And Another vs Deputy Commissioner_Collector, Muzaffargarh And Another1999 CLC 93 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Azizan Bibi and others vs Tufail Muhammad and others1999 YLR 2029 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amir Begum vs Manzoor Ahmad1999 MLD 985 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amina Bibi vs Sessions Judge, Layyah, District Layyah and others1999 P Cr. L J 2044 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-28
  Section 164 Cr.P.C.recording of statementjudicial discretionrevisional jurisdictionpolice investigationconstitutional petitionwitness statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of a Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, Layyah, to record the petitioner’s statement under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, during a pending police investigation. The core legal question was whether a witness must be produced by the police to have their statement recorded under Section 164, or if a witness may approach the Magistrate directly. The Court held that a witness is entitled to appear before a Magistrate independently to have their statement recorded during an investigation. The Court emphasized that while a Magistrate has discretion in recording such statements, this discretion must be exercised judicially, honestly, and for substantial reasons rather than arbitrarily. The refusal to even entertain the petitioner's application was deemed improper. Furthermore, the Court clarified that proceedings under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, are subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the Magistrate was directed to entertain and process the petitioner's application in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a witness independently approach a Magistrate to have their statement recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, without being produced by the police?
  • Is a Magistrate's refusal to record a statement under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge?
  • What is the scope of a Magistrate's discretion when deciding whether to record a statement under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aisha Bibi vs Muhammad Riaz Tariq And 2 Other1999 CLC 2084 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-14Read full judgment →
• Mst, Shamim Akhtar vs Muhammad Nawaz1999 YLR 2556 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-31Read full judgment →
• Mst Razia and 3 others vs The State1999 MLD 616 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-29Read full judgment →
• Ms. Aisha Khan vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Education1999 MLD 2764 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Shamim Akhtar vs The Capital Development Authority, Islamabad1999 YLR 1630 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Sap a Sajjida vs The Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1082 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-29Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Maqsooda Shabbir vs Pakistan Railways and others1999 YLR 2222 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-17Read full judgment →
• Molvi Taj Din vs The State1999 YLR 506 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-03Read full judgment →
• Mistri Allah Bakhsh (Deceased) Etc. vs Allah DittaK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 472 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
• Miss Shagufta Maan vs Islamia University, BHPK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 201 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
• Miss Marriyam Mubashir vs Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi1999 CLC 157 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-23Read full judgment →
• Miss Itrath Qazilbash vs Special Officer of Wealth Tax, Circle 22, Zone-a, Lahore and 2 others1999 PTD 1060 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
• Miss Fauzia Mustafa vs Chairman, Task Force and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1094 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-06Read full judgment →
• Mirza Zaheer Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 153 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-21Read full judgment →
• Mirza vs The State1999 YLR 2586 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mirza Tassadaq Hussain Baig vs The State1999 MLD 891 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muhammad Iqbal and others vs Government of Punjab1999 PLD Lahore 109 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-08
  anti-corruptionpublic servantscriminal procedurejurisdiction of policeultra viresstatutory interpretationwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple writ petitions challenging the registration of criminal cases against public servants at ordinary police stations for offences covered under the Punjab Anti-Corruption Ordinance, 1961. The core legal question was whether the Ordinance and the Punjab Anti-Corruption Rules, 1985, exclusively mandate that such cases be registered and investigated solely by the Anti-Corruption Establishment, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of ordinary police under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Relying on the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in M. Abdul Latif v. G.M. Paracha (1981 SCMR 1101), the Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions. The Court held that Section 8 of the Punjab Anti-Corruption Ordinance, 1961, explicitly provides that its provisions are in addition to, and not in derogation of, other existing laws. Consequently, the Ordinance does not displace the jurisdiction of ordinary police stations to register and investigate offences. The Court further noted that rules cannot override the parent statute, and any rule attempting to restrict police jurisdiction beyond the scope of the Ordinance is ultra vires.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Anti-Corruption Ordinance, 1961, exclude the jurisdiction of ordinary police stations to register cases against public servants under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can rules framed under a statute, such as the Punjab Anti-Corruption Rules, 1985, override the provisions of the parent Ordinance?
  • Does Section 8 of the Punjab Anti-Corruption Ordinance, 1961, imply that the Ordinance is the exclusive law for investigating corruption offences by public servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Mirza Faiz Elahi vs Federation of Pakistan1999 YLR 2657 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mirza Asadullah Khan vs Sharif Ahmad1999 CLC 1969 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-22Read full judgment →
• Miraj Din vs Additional District Judge, Ferozwala, District1999 YLR 2732 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-24Read full judgment →
• Mir Hassan Alias Piazal vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 668 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-20Read full judgment →
• Millat Tractors Ltd. vs Messrs Millat Tractor House, a Partnership1999 YLR 295 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-11
  arbitration awardinterest on awardrendition of accountsarbitrator jurisdictionerror apparent on the face of the recordpendente lite interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a trial court's order making an arbitration award a rule of the court, specifically contesting the arbitrator's authority to grant interest. The dispute arose from a suit for rendition of accounts, which was referred to an arbitrator by the parties. The arbitrator awarded both the principal commission amount and interest. The core legal question is whether an arbitrator possesses the jurisdiction to award interest when the reference to arbitration did not explicitly include such a claim, and whether an arbitrator functions as a 'Court' under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to exercise such powers. The Court held that an arbitrator's authority is strictly limited by the terms of the reference. Since the parties did not refer the issue of interest to the arbitrator, and the preliminary decree did not grant interest, the arbitrator lacked the jurisdiction to award it. The Court further clarified that an arbitrator is not a 'Court' for the purposes of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the award of interest was set aside as an error apparent on the face of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Does an arbitrator have the authority to award interest if the issue of interest was not included in the reference to arbitration?
  • Can an arbitrator be equated to a court for the purpose of exercising powers under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is an award of interest by an arbitrator without jurisdiction considered an error apparent on the face of the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Tariq Ahmad vs The Executive Committee, Punjab Bar Council, through Chairman and 8 others1999 PLD Lahore 527 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-25Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Jehangir and 17 others vs Government of the Punjab1999 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mukhtar Bibi vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1472 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Bibi vs Mst. Raheem Bibi1999 MLD 1026 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08
  revision petitionnon-reading of evidenceappellate court dutyagreement to sellpardahnasheen ladyremand of casejurisdiction of civil courtrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for declaration and injunction regarding land based on an agreement to sell dated 27-4-1968. The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court committed material irregularity and failed to comply with mandatory procedural law by ignoring and failing to consider vital documentary and oral evidence, particularly revenue records, and by raising the issue of civil court jurisdiction suo motu. The Lahore High Court held that the appellate court failed to discharge its duty under Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by not considering the totality of the evidence on record and that concurrent findings of fact lose their sanctity if based on non-reading of evidence. The court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the matter for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court's failure to consider material documentary evidence on record amount to a violation of Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts be sustained when they are based on the non-reading or ignoring of vital evidence?
  • Is a civil court's jurisdiction barred in matters concerning consolidation orders when the special tribunal has allegedly acted without jurisdiction or mala fide?
  • Does an appellate court have the authority to decide an issue of jurisdiction against a party without putting the parties on notice, especially when the issue was not pressed before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo vs Governor of the Province of Punjab, Lahore and anothers1999 PLD Lahore 115 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-02Read full judgment →
• Mian Hamza Shahbaz Sharif vs Federation of Pakistan and others1999 P Cr. L J 1584 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-27
  quashment of criminal proceedingsFIA jurisdictionabuse of process of courtforeign currency accountsconstitutional petitioninherent powers of High Courtfake accounts
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses two consolidated constitutional petitions seeking the quashment of F.I.R.s and consequent criminal proceedings initiated by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) concerning foreign currency accounts and bank loans involving private parties. The core legal questions revolved around whether the FIA possessed the jurisdictional authority to investigate transactions involving private accounts and private limited companies, and whether the allegations in the final challan reports made out a cognizable offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the FIA lacked statutory jurisdiction to register cases or investigate matters not involving public servants, federal government employees, or corporations controlled by the Federal Government, and further found that the essential ingredients of cheating and forgery were entirely absent as the account-holders were verified to be living persons and no wrongful loss or injury was established. Consequently, the Court accepted the petitions, setting aside the proceedings to prevent an abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings initiated without legal jurisdiction or lacking essential ingredients of an offence on the face of the challan report can be quashed by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution and Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Investigation Agency have the legal authority to investigate transactions involving private individuals and private accounts where no public servant or federal corporation is involved?
  • Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution and Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial court decides an acquittal application?
  • Whether criminal proceedings can be sustained for cheating and forgery when no wrongful loss or injury has been caused and the alleged account-holders are verified to be in existence?
  • Are constitutional petitions for the quashment of an F.I.R. barred by the dismissal of earlier writ petitions filed at the investigation stage when subsequent final challan reports have been submitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Bashir Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 707 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-18Read full judgment →
• Mian Asad Taj vs The District Magistrate, District Courts, Lahore and 12 others1999 YLR 1238 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-01Read full judgment →
• Mian Arshad vs Election Tribunal1999 PLD Lahore 392 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs World Trade Corporation vs C.B.R. and others1999 PTD 2341 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-19
  civil court jurisdictionsales tax assessmentstatutory remedyexhaustion of remediestax classificationbar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an importer of dried coconut, filed a civil suit challenging a Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.) memo that classified its imports as "processed food" subject to sales tax under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The petitioner sought a declaration that the assessment was illegal and requested a refund. Both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suit, ruling that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction due to the specific remedial framework established by the statute. Upon civil revision, the High Court upheld these findings. The core legal question was whether a Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate tax assessment disputes when the governing statute provides a comprehensive appellate mechanism. The Court held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction, as the Sales Tax Act, 1990 provides a complete machinery for redress, and Section 51(1) explicitly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. The Court emphasized that litigants must exhaust statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention, noting that bypassing specialized forums undermines legislative intent and clogs the judicial system.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute regarding sales tax assessment when the Sales Tax Act, 1990 provides a specific appellate mechanism?
  • Does Section 51(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters related to tax assessment?
  • Is a litigant required to exhaust the statutory remedies provided under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 before approaching a Civil Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs United International Associates through Managing Partner . vs Province of the Punjab and anothers1999 MLD 2745 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-17
  constitutional petitioncontractual obligationwrit jurisdictionstate liabilityenforcement of contractarbitrary state actionpayment of dues
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a contractor seeking payment for liquid nitrogen storage tanks supplied to the Government of the Punjab. The respondent government withheld payment, citing internal funding delays from the Asian Development Bank and alleging exorbitant pricing. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable for enforcing a contractual obligation against the State. The Court held that while constitutional petitions are generally not the appropriate forum for resolving disputed contractual facts, they are maintainable against the State or its functionaries when the State acts arbitrarily, unfairly, or when no genuine factual controversy exists. The Court rejected the government's defense, noting that internal funding arrangements between the government and a donor agency do not absolve the State of its contractual liability to the contractor. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the government was directed to release the payment with an eight percent mark-up, emphasizing that the State must act in accordance with equity and fairness.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable for the enforcement of a contractual obligation against the State?
  • Can the State evade contractual liability to a contractor by citing internal funding delays from a third-party donor agency?
  • Does the existence of a contractual dispute automatically bar the maintainability of a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ucc Private Limited and 4 others vs Deputy Commissioner, Lahore1999 MLD 1186 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs Tauseef Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore vs Lahore Development1999 CLC 26 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-17
  writ jurisdictioncontractual disputelocus poenitentiaearbitration clausealternative remedyspecific performanceintra-court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal challenged a judgment dismissing writ petitions filed against the termination of a construction contract by the Lahore Development Authority. The appellants argued that the unilateral cancellation of the agreement was illegal, mala fide, and without jurisdiction, invoking the principle of locus poenitentiae, as they had already taken decisive steps by commencing construction. The core legal question was whether the High Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction could be invoked to enforce a contract or challenge its termination when alternative remedies existed. The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable because the appellants had access to efficacious and effective alternative remedies, specifically arbitration or a civil suit for damages. The Court affirmed that disputes arising from contractual liabilities, which are dependent on the personal volition of parties, cannot be specifically enforced through writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that where a contract contains an arbitration clause, that forum must be utilized. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine, upholding the Single Judge's decision that the matter fell within the plenary jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked to enforce a contract or challenge its termination when alternative remedies like arbitration or civil suits are available?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent a public authority from cancelling an agreement after the other party has taken decisive steps in performance of the contract?
  • Is a contract dependent on the personal volition of parties specifically enforceable through writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shahi Bottlers Limited; Lahore vs The C.I.T., Central Zone, Lahore1999 PTD 3518 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sarwar Murtaza Corporation vs Collector of Customs, Customs House, Faisalabad And 4 Other1999 CLC 1084 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Saji Enterprises vs Manzoor Hussain and anothers1999 MLD 3080 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Raja Industries Ltd. vs Government of Punjab and others1999 MLD 3141 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Quality Steel Mills vs Central Board of Revenue And Other1999 CLC 931 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pioneer Housing Society (Pvt.) Limited through Managing1999 PLD Lahore 193 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-05
  specific performanceimmovable propertytime is essence of contractdissolved firmpartnership actequitable jurisdictionsale agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a civil court decree granting specific performance of a sale agreement for a plot of land. The appellant contended that the suit was not maintainable due to the dissolution of the respondent firm, that time was of the essence of the contract, and that the plaintiff was precluded from seeking specific performance after requesting alternative compensation. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a partner of a dissolved firm may competently sue to enforce the firm's rights under the Partnership Act. The Court further determined that time was not the essence of the contract, as the parties' subsequent conduct—specifically the vendor's willingness to accept payment after the stipulated deadline—demonstrated otherwise. Additionally, the Court clarified that pleading alternative relief for compensation does not disentitle a plaintiff from seeking specific performance under the Specific Relief Act. Affirming the decree, the Court ordered the respondent to pay an increased amount to account for currency devaluation and market appreciation, balancing the equities between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a partner of a dissolved firm institute a suit to enforce the firm's rights under a sale agreement?
  • Is time considered the essence of a contract for the sale of immovable property in the absence of explicit terms?
  • Does a plaintiff's alternative prayer for compensation in a suit for specific performance preclude the court from granting the primary relief of specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Javed Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. through Managing Director1999 PTD 1069 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The State1999 YLR 1753 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hina Export Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Syed Zahid Ali And Other1999 CLC 1984 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fatima Enterprises Ltd. vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Education, Ministry of Education, Islamabad and others1999 MLD 2889 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-11
  federal education feelegislative competencetax versus feeultra viresconstitutional petitionfinance actprovincial subject
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged section 15 of the Finance Act, 1992, and the Federal Education Fee Scheme issued via S.R.O. No. 139(1) of 1993, which levied a Federal Education Fee on companies with fixed assets exceeding fifty million rupees, arguing that they were ultra vires the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal questions involved whether the Federal Legislature had the legislative competence to levy an education fee, given that education is a provincial subject, and whether the exaction constituted a fee or a tax lacking any nexus to services rendered. The Lahore High Court held that education is not a federal subject under the legislative lists and that the purported fee bore no correlation to any services rendered to the payers, thus operating as a tax in the guise of a fee enacted without legislative competence and violating constitutional safeguards. The court declared section 15 of the Finance Act, 1992 and the Federal Education Fee Scheme to be unlawful, without jurisdiction, and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Legislature is competent to levy an education fee under the legislative lists of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • What is the distinction between a tax and a fee in terms of service correlation?
  • Whether the Federal Education Fee Scheme introduced under the Finance Act, 1992 amounts to a colorable exercise of legislative authority?
  • Whether the levy of the Federal Education Fee violates the constitutional requirements governing the enactment of financial measures and taxes?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dawood Flour Mills and others vs National Bank of Pakistan1999 MLD 3205 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-12
  execution first appealauction salemandatory depositnullity of salematerial irregularitybanking courtdecreetal amount
  Summary & questions settled

  This execution first appeal challenges an order of the Banking Court confirming the auction sale of the appellants' property. The core legal question was whether the auction sale was vitiated by material irregularity and non-compliance with mandatory deposit requirements under the law, particularly regarding the payment of 25% of the bid amount. The Lahore High Court held that the failure of the auction-purchaser to immediately deposit 25% of the bid money in cash, instead of handing over a cheque, violated mandatory procedural provisions, rendering the sale a complete nullity by operation of law. Furthermore, the vast disparity between the multi-million valuation of the property and the meager auction price constituted a material irregularity under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court laid down the principle that provisions requiring the immediate deposit of a fourth of the purchase money are mandatory, and default in compliance wipes out previous sale proceedings as non-existent in the eye of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to immediately deposit 25 percent of the bid amount render an auction sale a nullity?
  • Can a cheque be accepted as a valid substitute for the cash deposit required under Order 21 Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a massive disparity between the market value of a property and its auction price constitute a material irregularity under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What are the legal consequences when an auction-purchaser defaults on the immediate payment of the initial deposit following a court auction?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Data Hajwari Travels And Others vs Regional Transport1999 CLC 1951 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Cristal Cold Storage, Gujranwala through Irshad Ali vs Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore through Chairman and 5 others1999 PLD Lahore 347 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bashir Ahmad & Co. vs Government of Punjab and others1999 MLD 3223 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Altaf & Company Throughchief Executive vs Government of Punjab Through Secretary_Chief Purchase Officer; Livestock And Dairy Development Government Of The Punjab And 4 Other1999 CLC 1489 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Adamjee Construction Company Ltd. through Thief Executive vs Government of Punjab through DirectorGeneral, Punjab Sports Board, National Hockey Stadium, Lahore1999 MLD 2202 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-29
  revision petitionpower of attorneyrestoration applicationprocedural irregularityratificationprincipal and agenttechnicalities
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from the dismissal of a restoration application by the trial court on the technical ground that the application was filed by an advocate who lacked a formal power of attorney and was not signed by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the advocate had been appearing in the matter for two years without objection, and that any procedural irregularity was cured by the subsequent filing of a ratification. The High Court accepted the revision petition and set aside the trial court's order. The Court held that procedural rules in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are designed to advance justice rather than defeat it, and technical defects should not prevent a decision on the merits. Applying the law of agency, the Court ruled that the relationship between a client and counsel allows the client to retrospectively ratify the unauthorized actions of an advocate. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to allow the petitioner to cure the defect by signing the application or submitting a proper power of attorney.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a procedural defect, such as an advocate filing a restoration application without a formal power of attorney or the client's signature, is fatal to the case or is a curable irregularity?
  • Can a client retrospectively ratify the actions of an advocate who filed and signed pleadings on their behalf without prior written authorization?
  • Is a trial court obligated to provide a party with an opportunity to remedy a procedural defect in the signing or presentation of an application before dismissing it?
  Read full judgment →
• Meraj Ahmad vs Deputy Inspectorgeneral of Police, Multan and others1999 YLR 2263 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-24Read full judgment →
• Mehrookhan vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 558 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-16Read full judgment →
• Mehrban Hussain vs The State1999 MLD 1226 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-10Read full judgment →
• Mehram Hayat vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 216 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-02Read full judgment →
• Mehr Khan and 2 others vs Fateh Khan and 3 others1999 YLR 790 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-20Read full judgment →
• Mehr Bakhsh vs Saeeda Jan1999 YLR 958 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Khan vs Government of the Punjab through Additional Chief1999 PLC (C.S.) 1513 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-20Read full judgment →
• Mehdi Khan Chauhan vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 508 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-08Read full judgment →
• Mehdi Hassan And Another vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 196 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-24Read full judgment →
• Meer Muhammad and another vs Deputy Commissioner/District1999 P Cr. L J 2055 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1876 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-23Read full judgment →
• Maulana Abdul Latif Shamshad Ahmad vs District Magistrate, Kasur1999 P Cr. L J 2104 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-01Read full judgment →
• Mata Khan vs The State1999 MLD 631 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-29Read full judgment →
• Mat. Riaz Fatima and another vs Ch. Ljaz Ahmad and another1999 YLR 2681 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
• Master Riaz Hussain vs Muhammad Saeed AnwarK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 99 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-05Read full judgment →
• Masroor Ali Khan vs Jamshed Alam And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 104 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-16Read full judgment →
• Masroor Ali Khan vs Jamshed Alam and 2 others1999 MLD 2583 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-16Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmed vs The State and 2 others1999 YLR 2196 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-06Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Baig and 5 others vs Muhammad Hussain and another1999 YLR 1119 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-25
  civil revisioncompromise decreeminorguardian ad litemleave of the courtpower of attorneypre-emption suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners-defendants assailed a civil revision against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts in a pre-emption suit. The dispute arose when a compromise was presented before the trial court, leading to a consent decree. The petitioners contended that the mandatory provisions of Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were not complied with, as no express leave of the court was obtained prior to entering into a compromise on behalf of a minor defendant, and that the attorney lacked specific authority to compromise. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of Order XXXII Rule 7 are imperative and must be strictly complied with to safeguard the interests of minors. The Court ruled that a compromise decree entered into without the express leave of the court on behalf of a minor is voidable and cannot be sustained. Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts and remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the compromise was beneficial to the minor and to record its express leave accordingly, while affirming that the compromise was binding on the major petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a compromise decree entered into on behalf of a minor without obtaining the express leave of the court under Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is legally valid?
  • Can an objection regarding the lack of leave of the court for a compromise affecting a minor be raised for the first time in a civil revision?
  • Whether a compromise decree involving a minor and major defendants is an absolute nullity as a whole when the mandatory provisions regarding the minor are violated?
  • Does a general power of attorney without explicit authorization to compromise empower an attorney to enter into a binding compromise on behalf of principals in a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed vs Station House Officer, Police Station Changa1999 P Cr. L J 1198 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-10
  fair investigationrecording of accused versionhabeas corpusillegal detentionstation diaryRoznamchapolice rulesconstitutional rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two consolidated matters concerning police powers, duties, and accountability in criminal administration. In the first matter, the petitioner sought a writ against the Station House Officer for a fair and impartial investigation and the recording of his defense version. The Lahore High Court held that it is the constitutional and statutory right of an accused person to have their version recorded and to present oral or documentary evidence during the investigation, and that investigating officers are duty-bound to examine both the prosecution and defense versions to ensure a fair inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the Police Rules, 1934. In the second matter, a habeas corpus petition under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding illegal detention, the Karachi High Court addressed the mandatory maintenance of the police station daily diary (Roznamcha) under the Police Rules, 1934, holding that leaving diary entries blank or failing to record arrests and detentions reflects mala fides, warrants disciplinary and penal action, and constitutes serious official misconduct.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person has a statutory and constitutional right to have their version recorded during a police investigation?
  • Does the scope of sections 160, 161, and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 include suspects and accused persons alongside witnesses?
  • What are the legal consequences of leaving entries blank in the police station daily diary or Roznamcha under the Police Rules, 1934?
  • Can an Investigating Officer refuse to join an accused person on pre-arrest bail in the investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs The State1999 YLR 1149 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-22Read full judgment →
• Maple Leaf Cement Factory Limited vs The Federation of Pakistan and others1999 PTD 3907 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-08
  sales taxtime of supplyadvance paymenttaxable supplylegal fictioncharging sectionconstitutional petitioncement manufacturer
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the legality and vires of instructions issued by the Central Board of Revenue regarding the interpretation of section 2(30) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, which asserted that sales tax is leviable on advance payments received by cement manufacturers from stockists prior to the actual delivery of goods. The core legal question concerns the true scope and import of 'time of supply' under section 2(30) and whether advance payments without a firm sale agreement or transfer of property in goods attract sales tax. The Lahore High Court held that sales tax is a tax on the taxable supply or actual sale of goods and cannot be levied merely on the receipt of an advance payment or bailment of money where no concluded sale or transfer of property has occurred. The Court ruled that legal fictions such as section 2(30) cannot expand the charging scope of section 3, and consequently declared the impugned CBR instructions, show-cause notices, and subsequent assessment orders to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does the receipt of an advance payment for goods without a firm sale agreement constitute a taxable supply under section 2(30) of the Sales Tax Act 1990?
  • Can a legal fiction regarding the time of supply expand the scope of the charging section to tax transactions that do not amount to a sale?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against binding general instructions issued by the Central Board of Revenue despite the availability of departmental appeals?
  • Does the mere bailment or deposit of money by a stockist with a manufacturer attract sales tax liability prior to the passing of property in the goods?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzooran Bibi Etc. vs Mohammad Ishaq Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 89 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-21Read full judgment →
• Manzooran Bibi Alias Shahida Perveen And Another vs Muhammad1999 CLC 188 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-21Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs Iftikhar Hussain1999 CLC 2008 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-26Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain and anothers vs The State1999 YLR 496 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-06
  criminal appealmurderocular evidencemedical evidencebenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencecapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for the murder of Mst. Shamim Akhtar under sections 302, 34, and 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on ocular testimony and alleged recovery of weapons. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material discrepancies. The court observed that the conduct of the alleged eye-witnesses was unnatural, as they failed to intervene despite the victim being slaughtered, and the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's version, noting an absence of defensive wounds on the deceased. Furthermore, the court found the motive unproven and the recovery of weapons highly suspicious due to the significant delay. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and death sentence, ruling that the prosecution failed to meet the requisite standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The principle laid down emphasizes that where ocular testimony is inconsistent with medical evidence and witness conduct is unnatural, the prosecution case cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of defensive wounds on a deceased person contradict an ocular account of a struggle?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the conduct of alleged eye-witnesses is found to be unnatural?
  • Is a conviction reliable when the recovery of alleged murder weapons is significantly delayed?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive weaken the overall case against the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ellahi through Legal Heirs vs Ch. Muhammad Akbar and 21999 MLD 901 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-09Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmed Khan and 2 others vs Nasrullah Khan through Legal1999 YLR 27 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-08Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs The State1999 YLR 788 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad Butt vs Nazir Hafeez Butt1999 CLC 1520 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-04
  election petitiondisqualificationlocal government electionnotorious disqualificationthrown away votesservice disqualificationpublic statutory corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal arose from an election dispute for a Municipal Committee seat. The appellant, a former employee of a government-controlled bank, was declared disqualified by the Election Tribunal because two years had not elapsed since his retirement under a voluntary scheme, violating Section 21(1)(e) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Tribunal had also declared the runner-up as the returned candidate. The Lahore High Court upheld the disqualification, affirming that service-related disqualifications under Section 21(1)(e) remain effective regardless of retirement schemes. However, the Court set aside the declaration of the runner-up as the winner. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that votes cast for a disqualified candidate cannot be deemed 'thrown away' unless the disqualification was notorious to the electorate at the time of polling. Since the appellant’s disqualification was not notorious, the runner-up could not be declared elected. Consequently, the Court declared the entire election void and ordered a fresh election, establishing that where a candidate is disqualified for non-notorious reasons, the election must be set aside rather than awarding the seat to the runner-up.

  Questions settled

  • Does a voluntary retirement under a Golden Hand Shake Scheme exempt a candidate from service-related disqualifications under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a runner-up candidate be declared the winner if the successful candidate is disqualified after the election?
  • Under what circumstances can votes cast for a disqualified candidate be considered 'thrown away'?
  • Is a bank controlled by the government considered a public statutory corporation for the purposes of election disqualification?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad Butt vs Nasir Hafeez Butt And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 584 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
• Mansab Khan' vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1224 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-11Read full judgment →
• Man Zoor Ahmed and another vs The State1999 YLR 462 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-02Read full judgment →
• Malka Begum vs Sitara Begum1999 YLR 1270 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
• Malik Zahoor Ahmad and others vs The State1999 MLD 653 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-16Read full judgment →
• Malik Sultan Mumbraiz vs Abdul Aziz and 15 others1999 YLR 482 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-31Read full judgment →
• Malik Nazeer Ahmad vs Mazhar Hussain And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 107 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
• Malik M: Younas vs Registrar Cooperative and others1999 YLR 2637 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-17Read full judgment →
• Malik Mushtaq Awan vs Government of Pakistan and others1999 PLD Lahore 372 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-24
  Exit Control ListFundamental RightsRight to travel abroadProcedural fairnessAudi alteram partemAdministrative arbitrarinessConstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former parliamentarian and minister, challenged the placement of his name on the Exit Control List (ECL) by the Federal Government following the dismissal of the federal and provincial governments in November 1996. The core legal questions involved whether the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right, whether the impugned order was passed by a competent authority upon tenable grounds, and whether the petitioner's review application was lawfully decided. The Lahore High Court held that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of personal liberty and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, and that safeguards of procedural fairness from the Passports Act must be read into the Exit From Pakistan (Control) Ordinance. The Court found that the initial order lacked proper material, was passed without lawful authority, and that the review application was dismissed arbitrarily without a hearing. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the order placing the petitioner on the ECL was set aside as without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right of a citizen to travel abroad a fundamental right under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Whether the safeguards of procedural fairness provided in the Passports Act, 1974 are to be read into the Exit From Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981?
  • Can an order placing a person's name on the Exit Control List be sustained when passed without any tenable material or ground?
  • Whether the failure to afford a hearing upon a review application filed under section 3 of the Exit From Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 vitiates the order?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Suleman vs Muhammad Shabbir Akhtar1999 YLR 1653 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-15
  civil revisiondismissal of suitnon-production of evidenceremand of caseappellate jurisdictionprocedural technicalities
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a dismissal of a recovery suit and the subsequent appellate proceedings. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's suit under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the plaintiff was absent and failed to produce evidence on a date not fixed at his request, and whether an appeal against such dismissal was competent. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court misapplied Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. as the provisions were not attracted, and that the dismissal should have been treated under Order XVII, Rule 2 or Order IX, Rule 8, C.P.C. However, because a formal decree of dismissal had been passed under Rule 3, the Court ruled that an appeal was indeed the proper and competent remedy. The High Court affirmed the appellate court's decision to set aside the dismissal and remand the case for decision on merits, laying down that hypertechnicalities of law should not be allowed to non-suit a party and that appellate courts possess corrective jurisdiction to undo bad orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. are attracted when the adjourned date of hearing was not given at the request of the party concerned?
  • Is an appeal competent against a suit dismissal order passed under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C.?
  • Whether hypertechnicalities of law can be used to non-suit a party and deprive it of adjudication on merits?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a plaintiff whose suit is erroneously dismissed under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →