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.

• Abdur Rashid vs Arshed & Company through Proprietor Muhammad1999 MLD 1655 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-19Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid And Another vs Muhammad Rafiq And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 141 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-09Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs Shabbir Ahmed And 2 Other1999 CLC 2097 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan and another vs The State1999 MLD 683 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid Farooq vs Chief Secretary, Punjab and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 176 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Zaman Qureshi vs The Election Authority Through Chairman, Shadman Colony, Lahore And 8Other1999 CLC 112 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-03
  election authoritytabulation errorelection notificationconstitutional jurisdictionlocal government electionelection tribunalofficial negligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition against the Election Authority’s decision to cancel the appellant’s election notification. The appellant was initially declared elected, but it was later discovered that the Presiding Officer had failed to count 400 votes for respondent No. 5 due to a tabulation error. The Election Authority, exercising powers under Section 17(1) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979, corrected this error, cancelled the appellant’s notification, and declared respondent No. 5 elected. The core legal question was whether the Election Authority possessed the jurisdiction to rectify such errors after issuing an initial notification. The Court held that the Election Authority is vested with plenary powers to ensure elections are conducted honestly, justly, and fairly. Correcting a clerical tabulation error is a duty of the Authority and does not constitute an "election dispute" exclusively reserved for the Election Tribunal. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the Authority must rectify official negligence to prevent illegal benefits, dismissing the appeal and upholding the correction of the election result.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Election Authority have the power under Section 17(1) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 to correct a tabulation error after an initial election notification has been issued?
  • Is the correction of a clerical tabulation error by the Election Authority considered an election dispute within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal?
  • Can a candidate who was declared elected due to a tabulation error invoke constitutional jurisdiction to protect the result of that error?
  • Does the Election Authority have the power to rescind an election notification if it was issued based on incorrect data?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Zaman Qureshi vs Election Authority, Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 552 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Subhan And Other vs Haji Ashiq Muhammad And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 182 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs Station House Officer and others1999 P Cr. L J 1865 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs Printing Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. and 41999 PLC (CS.) 114 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor And Others vs Dr. Wali Muhammad And Other1999 CLC 1864 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 971 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar by Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Ramzan and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 470 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and 32 others vs Lahore Development Authority, Lahore1999 MLD 411 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and 2 others vs Muhammad Saleem and 2 others1999 YLR 2698 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar alias Abdul vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 764 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 432 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and 5 others vs The State1999 YLR 1766 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 847 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq Butt vs Kalsoom Bibi1999 MLD 30 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-22
  criminal revisiontransfer of trialspecial court jurisdictionanti-terrorism lawCode of Criminal Procedurejudicial biasspecial law vs general law
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by a Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism, rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought the option to be tried by a different court. The petitioner argued that the right to choose the trial court applies to any court holding a trial, not just magistrates. The court examined whether Section 191, Cr.P.C. applies when the judge presiding over the trial is different from the judge who originally summoned the accused, and whether special laws override this general provision. The Court held that the revision petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that the rationale behind Section 191, Cr.P.C. is to prevent bias when the same judge who summoned the accused also conducts the trial; where the summoning judge and the trial judge are different, the provision is inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that special legislation, such as the Anti-Terrorism Act, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on specific courts, overrides the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the transfer or choice of trial courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply when the judge conducting the trial is different from the judge who summoned the accused?
  • Can the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the choice of trial court be invoked when a special law confers exclusive jurisdiction on a specific court?
  • Is the right to choose a trial court under Section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 available if the accused was not summoned under Section 190(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Khan and 8 others vs President, Services Institute P.A.F.1999 MLD 1870 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-07
  licencerevocation of licenceeasements actpetrol pumpconstitutional petitionforcible dispossessionexpired licence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the legal representatives of a deceased lessee and subsequent licensee seeking to restrain the respondents from forcibly dispossessing them from a petrol pump-cum-service station site. The core legal question was whether a licence becomes irrevocable under section 60(b) of the Easements Act, 1882, when a permanent structure exists on the premises, and whether a licensee whose licence has expired can be evicted without a court decree. The Lahore High Court held that the statutory provisions of section 60 regarding irrevocability give way to the express or implied terms of a contract between the parties, and since the parties executed licence agreements for limited periods, the licences stood revoked upon expiry under section 62. Furthermore, the court held that upon expiration of a licence, the licensee's possession becomes unlawful, and the owner is entitled to use reasonable minimum force to expel them without needing to file a civil suit for possession. Discretionary constitutional relief was denied to unlawful occupants. The key principle laid down is that contractual stipulations regarding the duration and revocability of a licence override the statutory presumptions of irrevocability under section 60(b) of the Easements Act, 1882.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 60(b) of the Easements Act 1882 override an express contractual agreement between the parties regarding the revocability and limited duration of a licence?
  • Whether a licence granted for a limited period is deemed revoked upon the expiry of that period under the Easements Act 1882?
  • Is a licensor required to obtain a court decree for possession before evicting a licensee whose licence has expired?
  • Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked by an unlawful occupant of a property to resist eviction after the expiry of a licence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Etc. vs (Raja) Rustam Ali And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 94 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid And Another vs Raja Rustam Ali And 2 Other1999 CLC 152 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and 5 others vs The State and another1999 YLR 879 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid alias Teddi vs The State1999 YLR 1802 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Bhatti vs A.C., Sheikhupura and anothers1999 MLD 821 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer Khan and others vs Chairman, C.D.A. through its Chairman1999 YLR 247 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-23
  land acquisitioncapital development authoritydevelopment schemeconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsproperty rightsdiscriminatory treatmentwildlife national park
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of multiple consolidated writ petitions filed by landowners challenging the acquisition of their lands in Banni Galla, Islamabad, by the Capital Development Authority (CDA). The core legal questions involved whether land within specified areas could be acquired without a formal scheme prepared under the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, and whether the acquisition and subsequent demolition of houses were lawful, bona fide, and consistent with fundamental rights. The Lahore High Court held that the CDA's acquisition was illegal, conducted in flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, and tainted by discriminatory treatment violating Articles 23, 24, and 25 of the Constitution. The ratio laid down is that the CDA does not possess unfettered powers to acquire land or demolish structures in specified areas without first framing a proper development scheme under Sections 11, 12, and 13, issuing valid advance notices, and strictly adhering to the statutory procedure, including the payment of market-value compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Capital Development Authority acquire land in specified areas without first framing and approving a formal development scheme under the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960?
  • Does the availability of an alternate remedy under the statute bar the High Court from exercising its power of judicial review in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether private land can be subjected to permanent restrictions on use or acquisition without strict compliance with the statutory provisions and payment of compensation under the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960?
  • Does selective acquisition of land in a particular locality while sparing similarly situated areas constitute a violation of the principle of equal protection of law under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manna N alias Billa vs The State1999 PLD Lahore 74 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan and anothers vs Muhammad Ibrahim and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 438 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 81 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs The S.H.O.1999 P Cr. L J 277 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Khan and anothers vs Mst. Anwar Begum1999 MLD 2783 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid and 2 others vs Waris Ali and another1999 YLR 1668 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-31
  power of attorneyrevocation of authoritydoctrine of ratificationvoid ab initiorevision petitionunauthorized salepleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition concerns a dispute over the sale of agricultural land by an agent acting under a revoked power of attorney. The core legal question was whether the principal had ratified the unauthorized sale by his conduct, thereby validating the transaction. The petitioners argued that the principal’s failure to challenge other similar sales performed by the same agent amounted to ratification under the Contract Act. The Court held that the sale was void ab initio because the agent lacked authority at the time of the transaction. The Court affirmed that the doctrine of ratification requires the principal to have full knowledge of all material circumstances and cannot be applied to validate a void act. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the plea of ratification could not be entertained as it was inconsistent with the petitioners' original pleadings in the plaint, which asserted the agent's valid authority. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, upholding the appellate court's finding that the sale was unauthorized and the principal was not bound by the agent's actions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a principal be held to have ratified an unauthorized sale by an agent if the plea of ratification was not raised in the original plaint?
  • Does the doctrine of ratification apply to an act performed by an agent after the revocation of their power of attorney?
  • Can a party introduce a new case in evidence that is inconsistent with the pleadings set out in the plaint?
  • Is a sale of property made by an agent without authority, after the revocation of the power of attorney, considered void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 559 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Incharge Police Post, Ferozak.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 107 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Awan vs Inspecting Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax ,1999 PTD 2910 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Anjum, and 3 others vs Regional Transport Authority.1999 YLR 1 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Nasir and 3 others1999 P Cr. L J 1010 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Inspectorgeneral, Police and others1999 P Cr. L J 1357 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-12
  constitutional petitionpolice investigationduty of policestolen vehiclewrit of mandamusmalafide investigationstatutory dutiespolice inaction
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arose from a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by the petitioner seeking directions against police authorities for failing to properly investigate FIR No. 266 of 1997 registered under sections 457 and 381-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and to recover a stolen vehicle. The core legal questions examined the scope of statutory duties of police officers regarding crime investigation, the accountability of public functionaries, and the extent of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 to intervene in police investigations marred by mala fides or inaction. The court held that while the judiciary generally does not interfere with ongoing police investigations, the High Court is fully competent under Article 199 to intervene and issue directions where an investigation is conducted mala fide, without jurisdiction, or where police functionaries fail to exercise their statutory duties. The key principles laid down emphasize that police investigation must be fair, honest, and aimed at finding the truth to protect the innocent and bring the guilty to justice, and that state functionaries are bound to act in accordance with the Constitution and the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere in a criminal investigation under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What are the statutory duties and obligations of a police officer upon receiving information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence?
  • Whether the police are legally bound to investigate impartially to discover the truth rather than merely building a case for the prosecution?
  • Does a police officer incur penal liability under Section 29 of the Police Act 1861 for willful breach or neglect of duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif And Other vs General Manager, Pakistan Railways And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Labour Service Cases 61 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Latif and 2 others vs The General Manager, Pakistan Railway, Lahore and 42 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 204 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Aassi vs The State1999 MLD 1069 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-28
  criminal trialadversarial systemcourt's power to summon evidencehandwriting expertmiscarriage of justicerevision petitionhostile witnessjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged a trial court's order directing a handwriting expert to examine disputed documents after the prosecution had closed its case and the accused’s statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, had been recorded. The petitioner contended that the criminal justice system is adversarial, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to act as an investigator by filling lacunae in the prosecution's case. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court possesses the authority to call for additional evidence on its own motion to ensure a just and correct decision. The Court affirmed that criminal trials are not purely adversarial; rather, the judge has a duty to elucidate points left in obscurity to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Relying on Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, the Court ruled that the trial judge’s power to summon evidence is not restricted by the stage of the trial, provided the evidence is relevant to determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a criminal trial court have the jurisdiction to summon additional evidence on its own motion after the prosecution has closed its case?
  • Is the criminal justice system in Pakistan strictly adversarial, or does it allow for inquisitorial powers by the trial judge to ensure justice?
  • Can a trial court order a handwriting expert to examine documents after the accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has been recorded?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to record explicit reasons for summoning additional evidence invalidate the order if the reasons are apparent from the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Rashid Ahmad1999 MLD 2156 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-22
  civil revisionsuit for declarationclerical mistakemutationspecific performancejurisdictionagreement to sell
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a dispute over the ownership of land and property following an agreement to sell. The petitioner challenged the appellate court's decision, which had reversed the trial court's finding that a suit for declaration was not maintainable based on an agreement to sell. The core legal question was whether a suit for declaration is maintainable to rectify a clerical error in a mutation record where the sale transaction, including payment of consideration and delivery of possession, had already been fully executed and acknowledged before a Revenue Officer. The Court held that since the sale transaction was complete, the possession delivered, and the mutation sanctioned, the respondent had acquired full ownership. Consequently, a suit for declaration to rectify a subsequent clerical omission in the mutation sheet was the appropriate remedy, rather than a suit for specific performance. The Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, emphasizing that revision jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is limited to jurisdictional errors and cannot be invoked to challenge findings of fact or law that do not affect jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for declaration maintainable to rectify a clerical error in a mutation record after the sale transaction has been fully executed and possession delivered?
  • Can a suit for declaration be maintained where the underlying transaction was based on an agreement to sell that has already been acted upon and completed?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding findings of fact or law?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kareem vs Returning Officer, Quaidabad, District Khushab and 21999 MLD 3244 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kareem and another vs The State1999 MLD 3305 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs Secretary HealthK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 134 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 564 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq vs Mst. Mughlani and 10 others1999 YLR 1655 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Haque Nawaz1999 CLC 120 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The State1999 MLD 1333 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haffez vs University of the Punjab through Its Vice-K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 294 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez vs University of the Punjab And Another1999 CLC 129 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 106 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez and 2 others vs The State1999 MLD 477 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 609 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs C.B.R.1999 P.C.T.L.R. 393 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1245 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and anothers vs The State1999 YLR 2726 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Alias Aphu vs The Statek.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 524 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State1999 PLD Lahore 277 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-10
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationprohibitory clausediscretionary imprisonmentArshnon-bailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from the cancellation of bail by the Sessions Judge, Khushab, in a case involving charges under sections 337-D and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the offence under section 337-D falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby justifying the cancellation of bail. The High Court held that the offence under section 337-D, which primarily prescribes the payment of Arsh, makes the imposition of imprisonment discretionary rather than mandatory. Consequently, it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court held that the cancellation of bail requires strong and exceptional grounds, as the provisions of section 497(5) are not punitive in nature. Finding that the petitioner had not misused the concession of liberty and that the lower court erred in its legal interpretation, the High Court accepted the petition and restored the bail, establishing that discretionary imprisonment does not trigger the prohibitory clause of bail statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence punishable primarily by Arsh with discretionary imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the standard required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Are the provisions of section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 punitive in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar and 3 others vs Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala1999 MLD 1822 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Basit and others vs The State1999 YLR 1912 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari Khan vs L.D.A.1999 MLD 342 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 328 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Mst. Jantay Bibi1999 CLC 1505 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-22
  gift mutationburden of proofpardanashin ladyjoint possessionrebuttal of presumptioncivil revisionfraud and misrepresentation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Okara, which reversed the trial court's dismissal and decreed the respondent's suit challenging a 30-year-old gift mutation. The core legal question concerns the burden of proof regarding the validity of a gift of immovable property made by an illiterate pardanashin female donor in favor of her brother, particularly where fraud, misrepresentation, and lack of independent advice are alleged, and whether the presumption of truth attached to an old mutation can be rebutted. The Lahore High Court held that a mutation does not create title by itself, and when a donor denies the execution of a gift—especially an illiterate female whose property remained in joint possession—the burden heavily shifts to the beneficiary donee to affirmatively prove that the transaction was voluntary, genuine, and executed with full comprehension. The Court laid down that the presumption of truth attached to a thirty-year-old document stands rebutted where the plaintiff successfully establishes lack of knowledge due to joint possession, receipt of produce, and the failure of the beneficiary to enter the witness box to refute the challenge on oath.

  Questions settled

  • Does a revenue mutation by itself create title in immovable property without the beneficiary proving the underlying transaction?
  • Where an illiterate female donor challenges a gift mutation on the ground of fraud, upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the validity of the gift?
  • Can the presumption of truth attached to a thirty-year-old gift mutation be successfully rebutted by the donor through oral and circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the failure of a defendant donee to enter the witness box to rebut the assertions of the plaintiff give rise to an adverse inference?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aleem vs General Public And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 22 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aleem vs General Public And 5 Other1999 CLC 323 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-08Read full judgment →
• Abdali Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. through Hamid Khan Durrani, Managing1999 P.C.T.L.R. 1187 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abbas Ali vs Kamran Alias Ranoo And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 474 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-15Read full judgment →
• Abaid Ullah vs The State1999 MLD 529 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
• A. Textile Mills Limited through Company Secretary vs Central Board of Revenue through Chairman, Islamabad and 12 others1999 PTD 4138 · Lahore High Court · 1999-08-19
  presumptive tax regimewithholding taxfiscal interpretationexport proceedstax deduction at sourceresiduary clausecotton yarnstatutory construction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the legality of the Central Board of Revenue's directive requiring bankers to deduct income tax at a rate of 1% on export proceeds of cotton yarn. The core legal question was whether cotton yarn falls under Part II of the Eighth Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which covers goods manufactured in Pakistan, or under the residuary Part III, which attracts a higher tax rate. The Court held that cotton yarn constitutes goods manufactured in Pakistan and therefore falls under Part II, rendering the 1% deduction illegal. The Court emphasized that fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly in accordance with the letter of the law. Furthermore, it established that where an item can be placed under two heads of income or tariff, the interpretation favourable to the taxpayer must be adopted. Additionally, the Court affirmed that specific provisions take precedence over residuary clauses, and in cases of ambiguity in fiscal legislation, the construction beneficial to the subject should prevail over the revenue-favouring interpretation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether cotton yarn constitutes 'goods manufactured in Pakistan' under the Eighth Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a specific provision in a fiscal statute take precedence over a residuary clause when classifying goods for tax purposes?
  • Should ambiguities in fiscal statutes be resolved in favour of the taxpayer or the revenue authority?
  • Can the Central Board of Revenue impose a tax rate through circulars that contradicts the statutory classification in the Eighth Schedule?
  Read full judgment →
• (Syed) Sarwat Hussain vs Abdul HameedK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 174 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-03Read full judgment →
• (Syed) Naseem-Ur-Rehman Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 209 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
• (Syed) Mumtaz Hussain Shah vs SH. Amanat Ullah And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 498 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-09Read full judgment →
• (Syed) Aasim Hassan, Etc. vs Inspector General of Police Punjab, Lahore, EtcK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 630 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (M/s.) Sultan Flour and General Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Fazalabad through ItsK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 231 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Pioneer Hocsing Society (Pvt.) Limited through Its, ManagingK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 557 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (M/s.) Inpaktech Industries Private Ltd. Rawalpindi vs Government ofK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 266 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (M/s). Ados Pakistan Ltd. vs Oil and Gas Development CorporationK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 43 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-02Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Zahooran Bibi vs SHO P.S. City VehariK.L.K. 1999 Criminal Cases 103 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-20Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Waziran Alias Faiz Elahi vs Abdul SattarK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 204 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Umtul Jamil vs District Magistrate_Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad And Other,K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 494 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-03Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Shazia Parveen vs Muhammad AkramK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 484 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-14Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Ruqqia Bibi vs Munir Ahmad And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 109 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Pathani vs Ramzan (Deceased) Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 468 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-24Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Munawar Bibi vs Muhammad LatifK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 119 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Kishwar Bibi vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 543 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-13Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Khalida Haq vs Muhammad Sharif Etc.K.L. R. 1999 Civil Cases 52 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Kaneez Fatima vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 469 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Kalsoom Begum vs Ahmad Raza BukhariK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 389 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Jamian vs Muhammad Bashir And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 129 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-26Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Jaina vs Zohra Bibi And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 327 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Irshad Bibi vs Muhammad AfzalK.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 39 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-02Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Imtiaz Bibi And Another vs Abdul Qadir Shad, Additional DistrictK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 208 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Mst.) Hussain Bibi vs Muhammad Khalil And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 184 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Hamida Bibi vs Wali MuhammadK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 270 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-23Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Hamid a Nezam vs Municipal Committee And Other1999 K.L.R. Civil Cases 29 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-15Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Chiragh Bibi vs (Mst.) Aisha Bibi Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 201 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
• (Mst). Fatima Bibi And Other vs (Mst) Rahim Bibi And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 102 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• (Mian) Ahmad Zahoor And Other vs D.S.P, And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 542 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-18Read full judgment →