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.

• Matta Khan Through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Naseem Akhtar1997 CLC 1616 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-29Read full judgment →
• Matloob Hussain vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 2081 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-14Read full judgment →
• Masood Mukhtar vs Commissioner of Income-Tax_Wealth Tax, Bahawalpur Zone, Bahawalpur _BWP,1997 PLC (C.S.) 923 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
• Masood Mukhtar vs Commissioner of Income-Tax_Wealth Tax, Ahawalpur Zone, Bahawalpur1997 PLC (C. S.) 923 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
• Markazi Union Lambardaran, Punjab Province And 10 Others vs Board1997 CLC 1146 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-12Read full judgment →
• Maratab Ali vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-17
  post-arrest bailcriminal conspiracyfurther inquirymurderdelayed reporting
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from FIR No. 252 dated 17-7-1996 at Police Station Mochiwala, District Jhang. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not present at the spot of the murder and was only implicated for a prior criminal conspiracy allegedly witnessed by close relatives who failed to report it promptly, made out a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence. The Lahore High Court held that the role ascribed to the petitioner regarding the conspiracy lacked logical plausibility and that the unreported nature of the incident involving related witnesses brought the case within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the court accepted the application and granted bail to the petitioner subject to surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that delayed reporting of an alleged conspiracy by related witnesses, coupled with the absence of the accused from the scene of the crime, makes the matter one of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused not present at the spot of the crime and implicated solely for conspiracy is entitled to post-arrest bail when the conspiracy witnesses are related and delayed in reporting?
  • Does the lack of immediate reporting of an alleged conspiracy by eyewitnesses make the case one of further inquiry under criminal law?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 834 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Hussain vs Gulzar Khan And Another1997 MLD 1350 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-10Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Elahi vs Province of Punjab And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 1146 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-10
  law reforms appealmaster and servantright of hearingnatural justicecompulsory retirementstatutory rulesdisciplinary actionservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 against the dismissal of a constitutional petition challenging the termination of the appellant's services under Regulation No. 21(i) of the Lahore Development Authority (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1978. The core legal questions involved were whether an internal departmental appeal was barred under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 for a retirement order not amounting to a penalty, and whether an employee is entitled to an opportunity of being heard prior to retirement despite the absence of an express provision in the statute. The Lahore High Court held that the preliminary objection regarding maintainability failed because the rules only mandated appeals against penalty orders, whereas the appellant's retirement was non-disciplinary. On merits, the Court held that the principles of natural justice and the right to be heard must be read into every statute when an adverse action is taken against a person. The appeal was accordingly allowed, though relief was limited up to the date the appellant himself sought retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal lie under rule 13 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 against a retirement order passed under Regulation 21(i) of the Lahore Development Authority (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1978?
  • Must an employee be granted an opportunity of being heard before an order of retirement is passed against them, even if the relevant statute is silent on the matter?
  • Are the regulations framed under the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 considered statutory rules governing the service of its employees?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees whose service is regulated by statutory regulations framed under the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad and anothers vs The State and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1074 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-04
  private complaintbail applicationpre-arrest bailsummoning ordernon-bailable warrantsSection 91 Cr.P.C.police torture
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns four bail applications filed by police officials accused in a private complaint of murder, following the death of a detainee. The core legal questions involved the validity of the trial court's summoning order and the proper procedure to be followed when the accused appear in court after being summoned. The High Court held that the trial court erred in treating the accused's appearance as a pre-arrest bail matter, noting that the existence of sufficient grounds to summon an accused does not equate to reasonable grounds for believing the accused is guilty of a non-bailable offence. The Court established that once an accused appears in court pursuant to a process issued under Section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the trial court is required to proceed under Section 91, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, by directing the accused to execute bonds for their appearance. Additionally, while the trial court has discretion to issue non-bailable warrants, it is appropriate to issue summons or bailable warrants when the accused appears voluntarily.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court required to provide detailed reasons when issuing a summoning order under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a trial court treat an accused's appearance in court following a summons as a pre-arrest bail application?
  • What procedure must a trial court follow under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an accused appears in court pursuant to a process?
  • Does the existence of sufficient grounds to summon an accused in a private complaint equate to reasonable grounds for believing the accused is guilty of a non-bailable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad Alias Kooli vs The State1997 MLD 1496 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-13Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain, Naib-Tehsildar And 13 Other vs The Deputy1997 PLC (C. S.) 965 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain Jafri vs Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi And Other1997 CLC 1586 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-06Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1471 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-20Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad, Executive Engineer, Highway Division, Lahore vs Government of the Punjab Through Secretary, Communication And Works Department, Lahore And 3 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 241 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-20Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs Province of Punjab And Other1997 MLD 481 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-19Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 850 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-05
  pre-arrest bailabetmentrepugnant to injunctions of islamcriminal conspiracyfurther inquirymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 148, 302/149, 324/149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to an F.I.R. concerning murder and murderous assault following a land dispute. The core allegation against the petitioners was abetment under section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, although they were admittedly not present at the scene of the occurrence. The Lahore High Court considered that the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Federation of Pakistan v. Gul Hassan Khan had declared section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam, which ruling was given effect by the Supreme Court in a subsequent review petition. The Court held that since section 109 had ceased to have effect, its application against the petitioners was unlawful, presenting reasonable grounds for further inquiry into their guilt. Consequently, the Lahore High Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 ceased to have effect after being declared repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the penal provision regarding abetment applied against the accused has ceased to be effective?
  • Does the absence of the accused at the scene of the occurrence coupled with an allegation of abetment under a defunct provision constitute grounds for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Managing Director, Ittehad Chemicals Ltd., Kala Shah Kaku, District1997 MLD 798 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-17
  master and servantnatural justicetermination of serviceconstitutional petitionshow-cause noticepublic policystate-owned corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a judgment accepting a writ petition against the termination of the respondent's services as General Manager of Ittehad Chemicals Limited. The core legal question was whether the termination of an employee, in the absence of statutory service rules, could be set aside in constitutional jurisdiction when the termination was effected without a show-cause notice or an opportunity of being heard. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the termination order was invalid for failing to adhere to the principles of natural justice. Relying on the precedent of Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C., the Court rejected the argument that the master-servant doctrine precluded constitutional relief in the absence of statutory rules. It affirmed that even where a contract allows termination without notice, such a clause does not apply when termination is based on alleged misconduct. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in state-controlled corporations, the power to terminate cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in violation of the principles of social and economic justice, as protected under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can the termination of an employee of a state-controlled corporation be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction if no statutory service rules exist?
  • Does a contractual clause permitting termination without notice apply when the termination is based on alleged misconduct?
  • Is a termination order passed without affording an opportunity of being heard valid under the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Managing Director (P) WAPDA and 4 others vs National Industrial1997 PLC (C.S.) 1195 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-14Read full judgment →
• Managing Director (P) WAPDA And 4 Other vs National Industrial1997 PLC (C.S.) 1195 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-14Read full judgment →
• Malik Mumtaz Ali Khan vs Additional Deputy Commissioner1997 C LC 1634 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Yasin vs Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur' And 2 Other1997 CLC 1543 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-13Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Sarwar And Others vs Town Committee, Chak Jhumra1997 CLC 485 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Nazir Awan vs Muhammad Aamer Baig and 2 others1997 P Cr. L J 1393 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-24Read full judgment →
• Malik Khan Baig vs Station House Officer, Police Station Nawan1997 P Cr. L J 864 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-11Read full judgment →
• Malik Allah Bakhsh vs Thal Development Authority Through Member1997 CLC 1460 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Hussain vs Judge Family Court, Gujrat and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 232 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-22Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ali Qureshi vs Government of Punjab And 3 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 52 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-15Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmad Lodhi vs Federation of Pakistan1997 MLD 2365 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-20Read full judgment →
• Mahar Maqbool Ahmad, Manager,Auqaf, Rahimyar Khan vs Auqaf1997 PLC (C. S.) 639 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
• Mahar Maqbool Ahmad, Manager, Auqaf, Rahimyar Khan vs Auqaf1997 PLC (C.S.) 639 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
• M.S. Siddiqui vs Ghulam Muhammad Khan and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 218 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-03Read full judgment →
• M.D. Tahir vs Federation of Pakistan1997 MLD 2547 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-23Read full judgment →
• M. Umar Farooq vs P.M.D.C. And Other1997 CLC 534 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-30
  medical educationstudent detentionexamination regulationspromotion criteriaprospectus ruleswrit jurisdictionacademic autonomy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, medical students, challenged detention orders issued by the Controller of Examination and the Principal of Nishtar Medical College, Multan, which prevented their promotion to higher professional classes following failures in previous examinations. The core legal question was whether medical students failing specific subjects are entitled to promotion and whether the rules governing detention and promotion are mandatory and binding. The Court held that the rules and regulations governing M.B.B.S. examinations are mandatory, binding, and carry the force of law. It affirmed that students, by purchasing the prospectus and enrolling, impliedly consent to these regulations, which are sacrosanct. Consequently, the Court ruled that educational institutions must strictly adhere to these uniform standards, and courts of equity cannot interfere with the established structure of medical education. Ultimately, the petitions were disposed of based on a voluntary undertaking by the Principal of Nishtar Medical College to recognize the academic positions of the petitioners as they stood under previous interim court orders, thereby resolving the immediate grievances without altering the established legal position on examination rules.

  Questions settled

  • Are the rules and regulations governing M.B.B.S. examinations mandatory and binding on students?
  • Does a student's admission to a medical college constitute implied consent to the rules and regulations contained in the prospectus?
  • Can a court of equity interfere with the uniform standards and examination regulations established by medical institutions?
  • Is a student entitled to promotion to a higher professional class if they have not passed all subjects of the previous class?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Suleman & Co. Through Managing Partner vs Joint Official1997 CLC 260 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-08
  winding upintra-court appealcompany benchappellate jurisdictionauction of factorieselectricity arrears
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an appeal against an order passed by the Company Bench in a company winding up proceeding. The core legal question was whether an Intra-Court Appeal is maintainable against an order of a Company Bench passed after the winding up of a company has been ordered, or if the appeal lies directly to the Supreme Court. The Lahore High Court held that once a winding up order has been passed, any appeal against an order, decision, or judgment relating thereto lies to the Supreme Court of Pakistan under section 10 of the relevant ordinance, and therefore an Intra-Court Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is not competent. The key principle laid down is that the forum for appeal in matters following a winding up order is exclusively the Supreme Court as per the statutory scheme.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable against an order passed by a Company Bench after a winding up order has been issued?
  • Where does an appeal lie against an order, decision or judgment passed when an order of winding up has already been directed?
  • Does section 10 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 bar an Intra-Court Appeal in winding up matters?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Suleman & Co. Thourgh Managing Partner vs Joint Officials And Liqidator AnotherPTCL 1997 CL. 142 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M. Safdar Awan vs Presiding Officer, Special Court Banking, Rawalpindi And 10 Other1997 CLC 295 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-26Read full judgment →
• M. Izharul Haq And 3 Others vs Settleme1997 CLC 1864 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
• Lubna and anothers vs Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 186 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-18Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. (Retd.) Ali Imam And Another vs Multan Development Authority1997 CLC 85 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
• Liaquat And Others vs The State1997 MLD 1537 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-20Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs The State1997 MLD 1667 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-28Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs Inam Ullah1997 MLD 2232 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority Through Director General And Another1997 CLC 1674 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-16Read full judgment →
• Lahore Chamber of Commerce and Industry Through Secretary vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore Region (North Zone), Lahore And Another1997 PLC 295 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-12Read full judgment →
• Khwaj Din And Another vs Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement1997 MLD 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-21Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs Mrs. Zakiya Mushtaq Ahmad And 7 Other1997 MLD 920 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-17Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad Through Legal Heirs And Others vs Dost Muhammad1997 CLC 1995 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-01Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1556 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-10Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad and others vs Station House Officer, Sharaqpur1997 P Cr. L J 1959 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad And 2 Others vs Muhammad Sham And 22 Other1997 CLC 1859 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
• Khush Akhtar Subhani And 21 Others vs Government of the Punjab1997 CLC 1991 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-29Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Hameedurrehman And 5 Other1997 MLD 485 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-29Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs Government of Punjab And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 958 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-16Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hussain And Others vs The State1997 MLD 1567 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-06Read full judgment →
• Khadim Husain And Others vs Mst. Fazlan Bibi And Other1997 MLD 411 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh vs Muhammad Bakhsh1997 CLC 316 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh vs Controller of Examination And Other1997 CLC 1524 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-29Read full judgment →
• Karam Hussain And Others vs The State1997 MLD 1532 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
• Karam Ali vs Ghulam Ali And 9 Other1997 MLD 1571 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-12Read full judgment →
• Khizar Abbas vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1757 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-09Read full judgment →
• Kamaluddin vs Muhammad Sham And Another1997 CLC 1555 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-17Read full judgment →
• Kam,~L Through Legal Heirs vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1997 CLC 1735 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-16Read full judgment →
• Kaloo vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1856 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-01Read full judgment →
• K. H. Hiramanek vs Mrs. Shafqat Aslam And 3 Other1997 MLD 1800 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
• Jehangir vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1148 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
• Javid Akhtar vs Punjab Provincial Transport Authority1997 CLC 1168 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
• Javed Alam vs District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi1997 C L. C 1450 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Javaid Ahmad and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1314 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-22Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs Abid Ali And 12 Other1997 CLC 1453 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-19Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad And 6 Others vs The State1997 MLD 81 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-07Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Akhtar vs District Housing Committee Through Chairman1997 CLC 1472 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
• Jamil Ahmad vs The University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore1997 CLC 740 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-11Read full judgment →
• Jaffar Mahmand vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1827 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-13Read full judgment →
• Jafar Khan vs Arbitration Board Through Chairman, Arbitration Board1997 MLD 434 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-23Read full judgment →
• Ishfaq Ahmad vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 878 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-03Read full judgment →
• Irshad Hussain And 2 Others vs Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan1997 CLC 1667 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-22Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ahmed vs Tahir Saeed1997 MLD 409 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-15Read full judgment →
• Intisar Shamim Ahmed And Another vs Secretary, Labour and Manpower, Government of Punjab, Lahore And 2 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 860 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
• International Tanners And Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Collector Of Sales TaxPTCL 1997 CL. 44 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
• International Tanners and Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs Collector of Sales1997 PTD 609 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
• International Tanners And Industries (Pvt) Ltd. vs The Collector1997 P.C.T.L.R. 9 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• International Credit and Investment Company (Overseas) Ltd. and anothers vs Attock Oil Company Ltd. and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 480 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-11Read full judgment →
• M. Siddique and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 811 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-29Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1176 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-15Read full judgment →
• Imran Khurshid vs The Station House Officer of Police Station Cantt., Rawalpindi and 5 others1997 P Cr. L J 773 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-20Read full judgment →
• Ikram-Ud-Din vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Finance1997 PLC (C. S.) 31 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-06Read full judgment →
• Ikhtiar vs The State1997 MLD 9 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-07Read full judgment →
• Ihsan Ullah vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1403 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-25Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ali vs Ch. Abdul Hafeez1997 MLD 560 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs The State1997 MLD 1165 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad And Others vs Zafarullah And Other1997 MLD 2617 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
• Ibrar Hussain vs Collector, Customs And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 885 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-27
  service lawtermination of servicemala fidewrit jurisdictionArticle 212political interferenceadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner's services as a Customs Inspector. The petitioner was appointed following a recommendation from the Prime Minister's Secretariat but was subsequently terminated by the Collector of Customs at the behest of a Member of the National Assembly seeking to accommodate a nominee. The core legal questions were whether the termination, based on external political dictation rather than independent departmental assessment, was lawful, and whether the petition was barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the termination order was void ab initio, as it was passed on the dictation of an extra-departmental authority for extraneous considerations, demonstrating a lack of independent application of mind by the competent authority. Consequently, the Court ruled that the bar of Article 212 was not attracted because the order was not passed by a competent departmental authority. The key principle laid down is that public functionaries cannot terminate services arbitrarily or under external political pressure, and contractual clauses allowing termination 'without assigning reasons' do not permit the absence of valid, cogent reasons for such actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply to a termination order passed on the dictation of an extra-departmental authority?
  • Can a government employee's services be terminated arbitrarily under a contract clause allowing termination without assigning reasons?
  • Does an order passed by a departmental authority under the dictation of an external political figure constitute a valid exercise of administrative power?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Khan vs Ghanno Bibi And Other1997 CLC 1324 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-07Read full judgment →
• Humera Mustafa And Another vs Secretary Education, Government of Punjab, Lahore And 2 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 1032 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-26Read full judgment →
• Humanity Foundation vs Province of Punjab And Other1997 CLC 716 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-15Read full judgment →
• Hassan Muhammad vs The Station House Officer, Police Station1997 P Cr. L J 1284 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-25Read full judgment →
• Hasham And 7 Others vs The State And 2 Other1997 MLD 2075 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-27Read full judgment →
• Haroon Rashid vs Sh. Riazuddin and 2 others1997 PLD Lahore 188 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-13Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz And Others vs Province of the Punjab Through Chief1997 MLD 299 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-13Read full judgment →