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.

• Gulzar And Another vs The StateK.LiR. 1998 Criminal Cases 367 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-25Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab, Lahore and anothers vs Imran Ahmad Khan1998 PLD Lahore 365 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punajb through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and another vs Muhammad Ibrahim Azad1998 CLC 569 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-23Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab and otherss vs J. S. Brothers1998 CLC 876 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Yaseen vs Muhammad Nawaz and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 1634 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs Additional District Judge, Taunsa Camp at D.G.1998 MLD 1625 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul vs State1998 MLD 1366 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1018 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi alias Kala vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1568 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs University of Punjab1998 MLD 144 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Chairman, Board of Intermediate and others1998 CLC 432 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-04
  writ jurisdictioneducational boarddiscretionary reliefconcealment of factsinternal autonomyacademic examinationmaintainability of writ petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arose from a dispute regarding the petitioner's eligibility to appear in the Intermediate Annual Examination. The petitioner, a former student whose name was struck off the college rolls for non-payment of dues, sought to appear in examinations as a private candidate. The respondents withheld his result and prevented him from sitting for the examination, alleging the petitioner submitted forged documents and false affidavits. The core legal question was whether the High Court could intervene in the internal academic affairs of an educational board under writ jurisdiction when the petitioner had concealed material facts and lacked a vested legal right. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the petitioner had failed to demonstrate the violation of any specific rule or regulation by the respondents. Furthermore, the Court determined that disputed questions of fact and the petitioner's concealment of material facts precluded the granting of discretionary relief. The principle established is that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to interfere with the internal autonomy and functioning of educational institutions in the absence of a clear violation of law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a petitioner who conceals material facts and submits false affidavits entitled to discretionary relief in writ jurisdiction?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to interfere in the internal autonomy and functioning of an educational board where no rule or law has been violated?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa And Another vs Pakistan Municipal Corporation, through Its Administrator, And OtherK.L.R. 1998 CivH Cases 539 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa and another vs Municipal Corporation, through Administrator and 3 others1998 MLD 474 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs Headmaster Ch. Inayatullah and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 274 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-22
  civil service appointmentpolitical interferenceinitial recruitmentmeritocracytrichotomy of powersfundamental rightsconstitutional law
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the appointment of respondent No. 3 as a Laboratory Assistant, made pursuant to political directives rather than on merit. The core legal question concerns whether public functionaries can make civil service appointments under the dictatorial influence or recommendations of Members of the National Assembly (M.N.As) or Members of the Provincial Assembly (M.P.As) in violation of statutory rules and constitutional provisions. The Lahore High Court held that appointments made under political pressure or dictation from outsiders to the statutory framework are illegal, void ab initio, and violative of fundamental rights relating to freedom of profession and equality before the law. The Court established that the executive and competent authorities must act independently within their allotted constitutional spheres under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and that political representatives possess no authority to dictate administrative appointments. Consequently, the appointment was set aside, and the authorities were directed to fill the post strictly on merit from eligible candidates who applied under the original advertisement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appointment to a civil post made under the direction or recommendation of a Member of the National Assembly or Provincial Assembly is lawful?
  • Does a competent appointing authority act without lawful authority when it surrenders its discretion to an external political entity?
  • Are initial recruitments to public posts made without proper public advertisement and transparency violative of fundamental rights?
  • Whether the judiciary can set aside administrative appointments that violate statutory rules and constitutional mandates regarding merit?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs Government of Punjab and others1998 CLC 2058 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mujtaba vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1379 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Allah Ditta And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 475 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Additional SESSlONS Judge and 3 others1998 MLD 1605 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-05
  acquittalrevision petitionmaintainability of revisionalternative remedyconstitutional jurisdictionbar of revisionappeal against acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  These connected writ petitions challenge an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's revision petition as non-maintainable. The core legal question was whether a revision petition against an order of acquittal is maintainable when an alternate remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved party. The Lahore High Court held that where the law provides a right of appeal against an acquittal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, section 439(5) expressly bars the entertaining of a revision petition at the instance of the party who could have appealed. The Court affirmed that the Additional Sessions Judge was fully justified in dismissing the revision petition as incompetent, and consequently dismissed the constitutional petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Is a revision petition maintainable against an order of acquittal when a remedy of appeal is available under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does section 439(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a revision petition at the instance of a party who could have filed an appeal?
  • Whether the Additional Sessions Judge is justified in dismissing a revision petition as non-maintainable against an acquittal order appealable before the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Dosal and others vs Collector of Customs and others1998 MLD 2004 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mahboob and 9 others vs Mst. Saddo Mai and others1998 MLD 613 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 175 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Muhammad Bashir and others1998 CLC 701 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Muhammad AslamK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 279 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and others vs Muhammad Yousaf and others1998 PLD Lahore 11 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain And Another vs Muhammad Yousaf And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 42 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Judge Family Court (Civil Judge Ist Class), Rahimyar1998 CLC 972 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider Bhatti vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 137 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid, Etc. vs (Mst.) Bibi, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 689 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs I. G. Railway Police, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 102 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas Alias Mazhar Abbas vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 144 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-12Read full judgment →
• Ghu Lam Raza and others vs Town Committee, Khanqah Dogran1998 PLC (C.S.) 323 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-03Read full judgment →
• Ghafoor Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 625 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
• General Manager/S.A.A. Pakistan Ordnance . Factory, Wah Cantt. vs1998 PLC 191 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-05Read full judgment →
• General Manager, Southern Telecommunication Region- I.I.I., Chundrigar Road, Karachi And Another vs Full Bench of. N.I.R.C 11, Egarton Road Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 74 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Gamoon Khan vs Ghulam Qadir KhanK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 725 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-13Read full judgment →
• Fazalur Rehman vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 275 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-19Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hussain vs Malik Muhammad Saeed and others1998 MLD 974 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
• Fazal Bibi and 12 others vs Haji Munir Ahmad1998 MLD 911 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-01Read full judgment →
• Fazal Bibi And 12 Other vs Haji Munir AhmadK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 186 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-01Read full judgment →
• Fauzia Shah vs Muhammad AslamK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 86 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-19Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Rabia Bibi and 4 others1998 MLD 456 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-24Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad (Deceased) through Legal Representatives And 2K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 365 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Farah Khan vs Tahir Hamid Khan and another1998 MLD 85 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-01
  Muslim Family Laws OrdinanceTalaqArbitration Counciljurisdictionestoppelapprobate and reprobateforeign citizenship
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Arbitration Council declaring a Talaq (divorce) effective. The petitioner, a Pakistani citizen, contended that the respondent, who had acquired United States citizenship, could not invoke the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, to dissolve the marriage. The core legal question was whether the Ordinance applies when one party is a foreign national and whether the Arbitration Council possessed jurisdiction. The Court held that the Ordinance applies to all Muslim citizens of Pakistan, and by statutory interpretation, the inclusion of 'citizens' encompasses a single citizen; thus, the Ordinance applies where at least one party is a Pakistani Muslim citizen. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner, having participated in the Arbitration Council proceedings without raising jurisdictional objections and having accepted the return of dowry articles, was estopped from challenging the Council's authority. The principle laid down is that a party cannot 'blow hot and cold' by submitting to a tribunal's jurisdiction and subsequently challenging it upon receiving an unfavorable outcome.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 apply to a marriage where only one spouse is a Pakistani citizen?
  • Can a party challenge the jurisdiction of an Arbitration Council after participating in its proceedings without objection?
  • Does the term 'citizens' in the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 include the singular?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Iqbal vs The State and 3 others1998 PLD Lahore 371 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-25Read full judgment →
• Eric Etc. vs Hakim Muhammad Younas Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 773 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-09Read full judgment →
• Employees' Welfare Association vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 211 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-16Read full judgment →
• Dr. Nisar Ahmed Cheema vs Government of the Punjab through the Chief1998 PLC (C.S.) 1411 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-24Read full judgment →
• Dr. Naeem Akhtar, Assistant Professor of Urology, Quaid-E-Azam1998 PLC (C.S.) 341 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-22Read full judgment →
• DR. Naeem Akhtar vs (Dr.) Ahmed Salman Waris And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 215 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-22Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Usman Awan vs Sabah Mohyuddin, District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad1998 PLD Lahore 249 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-19Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Asghar Malik vs Auqaf Department through Secretary1998 MLD 76 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-14Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mohd Asghar Malik vs Auqaf Deptt, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 18 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-14Read full judgment →
• Dr. Kashif Rahim vs S.P., Multan and others1998 MLD 495 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abdul Sattar vs Secretary Health, Government of Punjab, Lahore1998 PLC (C.S.) 397 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-20Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abdul Sattar vs Secretary Health, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 350 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-20Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abdul Rahman Chaudhry, Chairman Punjab Textbook Board, Lahore vs Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 419 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-12Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 53) · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-22Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs Khizar Hayat1998 MLD 263 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
• Don Valley Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore vs Ministry of Finance1998 PTD 3859 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-05Read full judgment →
• Director, Social Security vs Khadim Hussain1998 PLC (C.S.) 389 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-13Read full judgment →
• Dildar Muhammad vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1865 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-23Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 18 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-05Read full judgment →
• Dawood Hercules Chemicals, Ltd. vs Collector of Sales Tax, Lahore1998 P.C.T.L.R. 540 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-16Read full judgment →
• Dawood Hercules Chemicals Ltd. vs Collector Of Sales Tax, Lahore.PTCL 1998 CL. 409 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-16Read full judgment →
• Daud Arshad Wattoo vs Abdul Hafeez and others1998 CLC 952 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-24Read full judgment →
• Darayus Pestonji vs Nam Singh and 2 others1998 CLC 921 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-14
  Election disputeElection Commission of PakistanConstitutional petitionReturning OfficerElection processLocus poenitentiaeElection petitionFair election
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a Returning Officer's reference to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) regarding the re-tabulation of election results for a Provincial Assembly seat, which alleged forgery in the original count. The core legal question was whether the ECP retains jurisdiction to review and rectify election results after a notification of a successful candidate has been issued, or if such challenges are exclusively reserved for an election petition under Article 225 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the ECP possesses an inherent constitutional mandate under Article 218(3) to ensure fair elections, which includes the power to review orders and rectify results vitiated by fraud or illegality, even post-notification. The Court affirmed that the term 'election' encompasses the entire process, and the ECP's duty to ensure fairness implies the power to correct manifest illegalities. Furthermore, the doctrine of locus poenitentiae does not protect illegal orders, and the constitutional bar under Article 225 does not preclude the ECP from correcting its own process before final adjudication by an election tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have the power to review election results and rectify illegalities after the notification of a returned candidate?
  • Does the term 'election' under Article 225 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 cover the entire electoral process from the issuance of the election program to the final declaration of results?
  • Can the principle of locus poenitentiae be invoked to protect an election result that was based on forged documents?
  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan possess inherent powers under Article 218(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to annul an election result vitiated by fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Darayus Pestonji vs Nam Singh And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 284 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Crescent Sugar Mills vs Income-Tax Officer and others1998 PTD 3747 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-28Read full judgment →
• Crescent Art Fabrics (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue, through Its Chairman, CBR Head Officer, Islamabad And Others1998 P.C.T.L.R. 1408 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Uzma vs (Dr.) Muhammad IkramK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 578 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-26Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain vs The State1998 MLD 1568 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-26Read full judgment →
• Colony Textiles Mills Ltd. vs WAPDAK.L.R. 1987 Civil Cases 152 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-29Read full judgment →
• Chiragh Masih vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 287 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-18Read full judgment →
• Chief Administrator Auqaf, Punjab and another vs Mst. Nazir Fatima1998 MLD 176 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-01
  arbitration awardremand of caseframing of issuessummary procedureobjections to awardwaqf propertyrent enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal arises from a dispute regarding the enhancement of rent of a waqf property, the Delhi Muslim Hotel, taken over by the Chief Administrator Auqaf. During the pendency of a declaratory suit filed by the lessee against the rent enhancement, the trial court appointed an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The arbitrator submitted an award accepting the rent enhancement, and the trial court made the award a rule of the court in a summary manner without framing issues or recording evidence, despite objections raised by the appellant. The core legal question was whether a trial court can decide objections to an arbitration award involving complicated questions of fact and law merely on affidavits in a summary manner without framing issues and recording evidence. The Lahore High Court held that where a matter involves complex questions of law and fact, the trial court is bound to frame issues and record evidence rather than disposing of the objections in a summary manner. The court set aside the judgment and decree and remanded the matter back to the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can decide objections to an arbitration award involving complicated questions of fact and law in a summary manner on affidavits alone?
  • Is it mandatory for the trial court to frame issues under the Code of Civil Procedure when adjudicating objections to an arbitration award?
  • Does the failure to frame issues and record evidence constitute a material irregularity rendering the judgment and decree unsustainable?
  • What are the powers of the court under section 33 and section 41 of the Arbitration Act regarding the application of the Code of Civil Procedure to arbitration proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• CH. Muhammad Bashir vs National Bank of Pakistan, WAPDA House1998 P.C.T.L.R. 1516 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ch. Ilam Din vs Lahore Development Authority, Lahore through DirectorGeneral1998 PLD Lahore 233 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Razzaq vs Federation of Pakistan and others1998 PLD Lahore 394 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-13
  territorial jurisdictionwrit petitionconstitutional jurisdictionfederal investigation agencycause of actionHigh Court jurisdictionArticle 199
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of writ petitions filed before the Lahore High Court challenging an order issued by an Investigating Officer of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in Karachi, which directed the petitioners to appear for investigation in connection with an FIR registered in Karachi. The core legal question was whether the Lahore High Court possessed the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, when the impugned order, the FIR, and the pending judicial proceedings were all situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court. The Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, emphasizing that the mere service of an order within its jurisdiction does not create the necessary territorial nexus. The ratio established is that a High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 unless the impugned act or the person performing the function is within its territorial limits. The Court affirmed that the dominant object of the petition and the location of the cause of action are critical, and that bypassing the appropriate High Court in another province is impermissible without exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere service of an order within the territorial limits of a High Court confer jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Is a High Court competent to entertain a writ petition when the impugned act and the relevant proceedings are situated entirely within the jurisdiction of another High Court?
  • What is the test for determining the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Majeed vs Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation1998 PLD Lahore 255 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-27Read full judgment →
• CH. Abdul Majeed Former Chief Executive Nieccc vs P.C.B.L. through ItsK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 339 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• C vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 267 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-04Read full judgment →
• Buttar, Darey Khan vs Muhammad Hussain and others1998 CLC 1439 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-19Read full judgment →
• Budhen vs Mst. Hajran Bibi and others1998 CLC 2068 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-19Read full judgment →
• Brig. (R.) Imtiaz Ahmad vs Federation of Pakistan through The Director-1998 P Cr. L J 2051 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-05Read full judgment →
• Brig (Retd.) Muhammad Muzaffar Chaudhry vs Returning Officers And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 385 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-07Read full judgment →
• Boota Beg vs Province of Punjab and others1998 MLD 575 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-31Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan vs Muhammad Baqir Ali Tatari and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 855 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-24Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education vs Central Board of Revenue and others1998 PTD 2012 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-22
  writ jurisdictionvoid ab initiotax exemptionlimitation periodillegal deductionrefund of taxlaches
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the refusal of tax authorities to refund income tax deducted from interest on government securities held by the petitioner, a corporate body. The core legal question was whether the limitation period prescribed under Section 50 of the Income Tax Act applies to a claim for refund of tax illegally deducted from income that is statutorily exempt, and whether the writ petition was maintainable. The Court held that the deduction was void ab initio because the petitioner's income was exempt from taxation. Consequently, the limitation period for refund claims under the Income Tax Act did not apply to the petitioner's case. The Court determined that when an authority acts without jurisdiction and passes a void order, the High Court may exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to redress the grievance, regardless of the failure to exhaust alternative statutory remedies. The respondents' orders were set aside, and they were directed to refund the illegally deducted amounts to the petitioner, establishing that limitation does not run against a void order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period prescribed under Section 50 of the Income Tax Act apply to a claim for refund of tax deducted from income that is statutorily exempt?
  • Can a High Court exercise writ jurisdiction against a void order even if alternative statutory remedies were not exhausted?
  • Does the limitation period run against an order that is void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilal And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 152 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-23Read full judgment →
• Begum Rashida Nawaz vs Ch. Muhammad Amin and 3 others1998 PLD Lahore 503 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed and another vs Rehmat Ali and another1998 MLD 1789 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-02Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Muhammad AmenK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 304 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-30Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Inayat Ullah And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 127 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-01Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura and another--1998 CLC 263 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-27Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Sheikh vs Pakistan Engineering Council through Chairman, Islamabad and 11 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 319 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-12Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Sheikh vs Pakistan Engineering Council And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 204 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-12Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Patwari vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 347 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-08Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Chaudhry vs Pakistan Telecommunication CompanyK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 77 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Barkat vs Muhammad Safdar And Other(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 50) · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1418 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-28
  grave and sudden provocationmurderdeath sentence confirmationflagrante delictoalteration of convictioncompensationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Court convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of his sister and another individual, sentencing him to death on two counts along with a reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for confirmation of the death sentences. The core legal question was whether the appellant acted under grave and sudden provocation upon discovering the victims together in compromising circumstances, thereby altering the nature of the offense from intentional murder to a lesser category. The Lahore High Court held that the evidence, including the condition of the bodies and the surrounding circumstances, established that the appellant caught the victims in flagrante delicto, inducing a state of grave and sudden provocation that deprived him of self-control. Consequently, the court altered the conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, set aside the death sentences, and substituted them with concurrent sentences of ten years rigorous imprisonment, while modifying compensation under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the discovery of a sister with a paramour in compromising circumstances at night constitutes grave and sudden provocation?
  • Can a plea of grave and sudden provocation be considered by an appellate court even if it was not specifically raised during the trial?
  • Does killing under grave and sudden provocation attract a conviction under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 instead of Section 302(b)?
  • Whether the High Court has the power to enhance compensation awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Banqu E Indosuez Belgium and others vs Haral Textile Ltd.1998 CLC 582 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-09
  irrevocable letter of credittemporary injunctioninternational tradeautonomy of creditdocumentary creditbreach of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a trial court order that granted a temporary injunction restraining payment under an irrevocable letter of credit. The respondent-purchaser sought this relief, alleging that the machinery supplied by the appellant-seller was defective, constituting a breach of the underlying sales contract. The core legal question was whether a purchaser can restrain payment under an irrevocable letter of credit due to disputes regarding the underlying sales contract, and whether courts may impose conditions, such as furnishing a bank guarantee, on such payments. The High Court held that the contract of an irrevocable letter of credit is entirely independent of the underlying contract of sale. Consequently, a purchaser cannot frustrate the payment obligations under a letter of credit based on alleged breaches of the sales contract. The Court emphasized that banks deal in documents, not goods, and that the autonomy of irrevocable letters of credit is essential for international trade. Finding no breach of the letter of credit terms themselves, the Court set aside the injunction, affirming that such mechanisms should not be interfered with absent exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Can a purchaser restrain payment under an irrevocable letter of credit based on a breach of the underlying sales contract?
  • Is the contract of an irrevocable letter of credit independent of the underlying contract of sale between the buyer and seller?
  • Under what circumstances may a court interfere with the payment mechanism of an irrevocable letter of credit?
  Read full judgment →