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.

• Muhammad Javaid vs The Manager, Rustam Sohrab Cycle Factory(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 188) · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 190 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-05
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoverypublic witnessespolice witness credibilityProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) OrderSection 103 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Jameel, who was charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 for the alleged possession of 25 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the recovery of narcotics, witnessed solely by police officers without independent public witnesses, violated the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby entitling the petitioner to bail. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the recovery was not invalidated by the absence of public witnesses. Relying on consistent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court established the principle that in narcotics cases, police officers are competent witnesses whose testimony is as credible as any other. The Court further noted that public witnesses are often reluctant to testify in drug trafficking cases, making strict compliance with Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, non-mandatory in such contexts. As the alleged offense carried a potential sentence of life imprisonment, the Court found the petitioner disentitled to bail under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is the recovery of narcotics invalid if witnessed only by police officers without independent public witnesses?
  • Is strict compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory in cases involving the recovery of narcotics?
  • Are police officers considered competent witnesses in narcotics recovery cases?
  • Does the potential for a life imprisonment sentence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 bar the grant of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs Ch. Muhammad Azhar. District Magistrate, Rajanpur1996 MLD 1858 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 2014 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1269 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-13
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaystatutory groundmurderfourth provisodelay in trialdesperate criminal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail on statutory grounds in a case registered under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, contending that his trial had not concluded despite a lapse of over two years and seven months, and that the delay was not attributable to him. The State and the complainant opposed the petition, arguing that the manner of the offence brought the case within the prohibitive fourth proviso to section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the petitioner's alleged conduct. The Lahore High Court held that bail on statutory grounds under the third proviso to section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is a matter of right and leaves no discretion with the Court unless barred by the fourth proviso. The Court observed that the allegations in the First Information Report arose from a sudden altercation and did not establish that the petitioner was a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal. As the delay in concluding the trial was not caused by the petitioner, and he was not a previous convict, the Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is bail on statutory grounds under the third proviso of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to be granted as of right?
  • Does the mere severity of allegations in an F.I.R. automatically bring an accused within the prohibitive fourth proviso of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can delay in the conclusion of a trial caused by the record being summoned before the Supreme Court be attributed to an accused person seeking statutory bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan vs The District Magistrate, Bhakkar1996 PLD Lahore 90 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal, Etc vs Director General LDAK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 328 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1740 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1947 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikram vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1435 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees and others vs Superintending Engineer and others1996 CLC 1747 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim alias Papu vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 685 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 634 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 279 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 613 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Mst. Parsan Bibi and others1996 MLD 1158 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Mst. Parsan Bibi And Other1996 MLD 1158 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Mst. Ahmadi Begum and others1996 CLC 137 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-11
  ejectment petitionlandlord and tenantco-ownershipjoint Khatajurisdiction of Rent Controllerconstitutional petitiontitle dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated by the respondent landlady against the petitioner lessee regarding a plot of land leased for a service station. The core legal question was whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, given that the petitioner had subsequently acquired ownership rights in the joint holding, thereby becoming a co-owner, and whether the landlady remained the sole owner of the disputed property. The Lahore High Court held that the landlady failed to establish sole ownership over the entire leased area, whereas the petitioner successfully proved that he had acquired a share in the joint Khata, thereby becoming a co-sharer. The Court ruled that an ejectment petition before a Rent Controller is not maintainable against a co-sharer, as the Rent Controller lacks jurisdiction to resolve intricate questions of title, and the appropriate remedy lies in a civil suit for partition. The key principles laid down are that a tenant who acquires the status of a co-sharer ceases to be a tenant, the principle of estoppel under Article 116 of the Evidence Act does not apply when tenancy is extinguished by subsequent co-ownership, and a co-sharer cannot be evicted through summary rent proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ejectment petition under rent laws is maintainable against a tenant who has subsequently acquired the status of a co-owner in the property?
  • Does the principle of estoppel under Article 116 of the Evidence Act apply when a tenant acquires ownership rights during the continuance or after the determination of tenancy?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for an ex-landlord when a bona fide dispute of title arises regarding the whole property against a co-sharer tenant?
  • Can a Rent Controller decide intricate and complex questions of title when the determination of the relationship of landlord and tenant solely depends on ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Mst. Ahmad1 BegumK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 217 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif and others vs Mukarram Khan and others1996 PLD Lahore 58 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-01
  Intra-court appealWrit jurisdictionPolice investigationJactitation of marriageFamily Court jurisdictionValidity of divorceSeparation of powersMuslim Family Laws Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Single Judge's order that directed police custody for the appellants, questioned the validity of a divorce due to lack of union council certification, and ordered a reinvestigation. The core legal question was whether the High Court, exercising constitutional jurisdiction, could interfere with police investigations and adjudicate on disputed factual issues like the validity of a marriage or divorce. The Division Bench held that the impugned order was unsustainable. It affirmed that the investigation of criminal cases is the exclusive domain of the police, and the judiciary should not interfere with this statutory function. Furthermore, the Court ruled that it cannot resolve disputed questions of fact, such as the validity of a marriage or divorce, especially when a suit for jactitation of marriage is pending before a Family Court, which possesses exclusive jurisdiction. The judgment emphasized that the judiciary and police have distinct, complementary roles, and constitutional jurisdiction should not be used to bypass the established legal forums for factual adjudication or to influence pending criminal investigations.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court, in writ jurisdiction, interfere with the police's statutory duty to investigate a cognizable criminal case?
  • Does the failure to send a notice of Talaq to the Chairman of the Union Council render a divorce ineffective under Shariah?
  • Does a Family Court have exclusive jurisdiction to decide issues regarding the validity of a marriage?
  • Should a High Court make findings on disputed factual issues, such as the validity of a marriage, while a suit for jactitation of marriage is pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1973 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gulshan Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 15 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 102 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Alwari vs Punjab University Through the Controller of Examinations, LahoreK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 345 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Faazil Butt vs S.H.O., Police Station _a_ Division, Gujrat and another1996 P Cr. L J 2019 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 821 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din and 9 others vs Mst. Absar Fatima and others1996 CLC 1979 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-29
  specific performancepower of attorneyrevocation of agencywritten statementagency coupled with interestcivil procedurepleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a suit for possession through specific performance of an agreement to sell. The core legal question concerned whether a principal is bound by a written statement filed by an attorney on their behalf, and whether such authority is revocable when the agent possesses an interest in the subject property. The Court held that the principal is bound by the acts of an agent performed during the subsistence of a valid power of attorney. Specifically, a written statement filed by an attorney while their authority was active is valid under Order VI, Rules 14 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872, an agency coupled with an interest in the property is irrevocable. Consequently, the Trial Court’s order allowing the principal to file a fresh written statement after the initial valid filing was set aside as an illegal exercise of jurisdiction. The principle established is that a principal cannot repudiate acts performed by an authorized agent during the subsistence of the agency, particularly where the agency is coupled with an interest.

  Questions settled

  • Is a principal bound by a written statement filed by an attorney during the subsistence of the power of attorney?
  • Can a power of attorney be revoked when the agent has an interest in the property?
  • Does a court act illegally by allowing a party to file a fresh written statement after a valid one has already been filed by an authorized attorney?
  • What are the requirements for signing and verifying pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Qazi Bashir Ahmad1996 P.C.T.L.R. 257 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Qazi Bashir Ahmad And Others1996 P.C.T.L.R. 306 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Qazi Bashir Ahmad And 8 Other1996 MLD 674 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 278 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Baloch vs Sadar Din and 3 others1996 MLD 120 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Baloch vs Sadar Din And 3 Other1996 MLD 120 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs The State1996 MLD 1354 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs The S.H.O, EtcK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 37 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Jamadar Rahim Khan through Legal Heirs and 21996 MLD 1681 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Jamadar Rahim Khan Through Iregal Heirs And 21996 MLD 1681 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs Ghulam Nabi, Inspector Police/C.I.A., Faisalabad1996 P Cr. L J 1072 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Secretary Education, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 899 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And Others vs Punjab Government And Other1996 M LD 685 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and anothers vs Malik Muhammad Sarfraz Khan and others1996 MLD 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And Another vs Malik Muhammad Sarfraz Khan And Other1996 MLD 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 6 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 827 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 2 others vs Jehan Khan and 18 others1996 CLC 689 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Alias Kali vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 196 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Shah Noor Khan and anothers1996 MLD 1819 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Shah Noor Khan And Another1996 MLD 1819 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 1475 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota And Another vs The State1996 MLD 1475 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and other vs Gul Mawaz and others1996 CLC 150 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf And Another vs Fateh Bibi And 2 Other1996 MLD 753 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf alias Kalia vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 675 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaque vs The State1996 MLD 774 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq alias Faku and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 1342 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq Alias Faku And Another vs The State1996 MLD 1342 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1914 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 1025 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1659 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad And 2 Other vs Muhammad Aslam And 4 Other1996 KLR Civil Cases 516 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1996 MLD 612 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 762 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1195 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State and 3 others1996 P Cr. L J 1930 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Station House Officer, Police Station Basti1996 P Cr. L J 583 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Bedar and others vs Muhammad Aslam Pervez and others1996 CLC 385 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Badar vs Muhammad AslamK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 209 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and 8 others vs Municipal Committee, Hasilpur and 21996 CLC 282 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and 8 others vs Muhammad Hussain and 3 others1996 CLC 1167 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad vs The State1996 MLD 1038 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad vs S.H.O. and others1996 P Cr. L J 1870 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Muhammad Latif1996 PLD Lahore 321 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs D.C.O, Etc.(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 187) · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin And Another vs The State1996 MLD 607 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 257 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs District Magistrate, Rahimyarkhan1996 PLD Lahore 342 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-05
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public orderdouble jeopardyconstitutional petitioncriminal historydetention orderpolitical party membership
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Rahimyarkhan, under the West Pakistan (Maintenance of Public Order) Ordinance, 1960, against the petitioner's father. The detention was predicated on the detenu's history of numerous criminal cases and alleged involvement in militant activities. The core legal question was whether past criminal history, including convictions and pending trials, constitutes a valid ground for preventive detention, and whether membership in a political party justifies such action. The Lahore High Court held that the detention order was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court established that preventive detention cannot be based on past criminal acts for which a person has already been prosecuted, as this violates the principle against double jeopardy. Furthermore, the Court ruled that membership in a recognized political party is not an offense, and detention orders must be supported by concrete, current material rather than vague, whimsical allegations. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate release of the detenu, emphasizing that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for punitive measures.

  Questions settled

  • Can past criminal cases, whether pending or resulting in conviction, form a valid basis for an order of preventive detention?
  • Does the detention of a person based on criminal charges for which they have already been tried violate the principle against double jeopardy?
  • Is membership in a recognized political party sufficient grounds for ordering preventive detention?
  • Must a detention order be supported by concrete material, or is the subjective opinion of a District Magistrate sufficient?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Khan alias 'Achi vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1405 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Wattoo vs The State1996 MLD 1346 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1493 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Director, Schools (Elementary Education), Multan Region, Multan and 2 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 305 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram alias Nikku and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1091 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 59 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs Abdul Aziz and 2 others1996 PLD Lahore 232 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-31
  Lambardari appointmentCivil revisionRejection of plaintCause of actionAdministrative discretionSpecific reliefRevenue authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges an appellate order that set aside the trial court's rejection of a plaint regarding the appointment of a Lambardar. The core legal question was whether a civil suit for declaration and injunction is maintainable to challenge the administrative appointment of a Lambardar by Revenue Authorities. The High Court held that the appointment of a Lambardar is a purely administrative function falling exclusively within the domain of Revenue Officers. The court determined that no individual holds a vested right to such an appointment, meaning the dispute does not involve a legal character or right to property under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, nor does it establish a legal obligation under Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. Consequently, the plaint failed to disclose a cause of action. The court distinguished the strict requirements for a civil suit from the broader scope of Constitutional petitions, ultimately allowing the revision, setting aside the appellate order, and restoring the trial court's rejection of the plaint.

  Questions settled

  • Is the appointment of a Lambardar a matter that can be challenged through a civil suit for declaration and injunction?
  • Does an applicant for the position of Lambardar possess a vested right to be appointed?
  • Can a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 be maintained regarding the administrative appointment of a Lambardar?
  • Is the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 justified when the subject matter falls exclusively within the administrative domain of Revenue Authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Etc vs Riaz Hussain Etc(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 3) · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad vs Muhammad Ali and another1996 PLD Lahore 158 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-20
  pre-emption suitLand Reforms Regulationlimitation periodinvoluntary alienationsecond appealcourt-fee deficiencyIslamic Injunctions
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a suit for pre-emption concerning land purchased by the respondents. The primary legal questions concerned whether the appeal was time-barred due to re-filing delays, whether the appeal was incompetent for lacking a trial court decree-sheet, whether the suit abated following the declaration of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as repugnant to Islamic Injunctions, and whether the Land Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 115) invalidated the pre-emption decree. The Court held that the appeal was filed within time, as delays resulting from court holidays and office procedures are excluded from limitation calculations. Regarding the merits, the Court ruled that pre-emption decrees are involuntary alienations not governed by the restrictions on voluntary sales under M.L.R. 115. Furthermore, it affirmed that pre-emption decrees passed prior to August 1, 1986, were saved from the effects of the Shariat declarations. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree in favor of the appellant, establishing that court-ordered pre-emption rights remain protected under the relevant statutory amendments.

  Questions settled

  • Does the time taken to remove office objections on a memorandum of appeal count towards the limitation period?
  • Are pre-emption decrees considered involuntary alienations exempt from the restrictions of the Land Reforms Regulation?
  • Does the failure to affix proper court-fee on a memorandum of appeal justify immediate rejection without an opportunity to rectify the deficiency?
  • Were pre-emption decrees passed before August 1, 1986, saved from the effects of the declaration that the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 was against the Injunctions of Islam?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State1996 MLD 1345 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1928 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Zahoor vs Province of Punjab and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 600 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1248 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs S.H.O. and another1996 P Cr. L J 2048 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs District Magistrate, Bahawalnagar and 5 others1996 MLD 16 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs District Magistrate, Bahawalnagar And 5 Other1996 MLD 16 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas Alam vs Director of Education (Elementary), Labour Division and 4 others1996 CLC 1316 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
• Mughal Technical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs C.I.T., Central Zone, Lahore1996 PTD 263 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-25
  gross profit rateestimation of salesassessment orderIncome Tax Ordinancereference applicationunverifiable accountstax reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses a tax reference case and a connected petition filed under section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, relating to assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91, concerning the estimation of sales and the application of a gross profit (G.P.) rate by tax authorities. The core legal questions involved whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the estimated sales and G.P. rate despite the maintenance of excise records, and whether a mandatory notice under section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was required prior to discarding the assessee's accounts for the relevant assessment year. The Court held that the requirement for giving a specific notice of account defects prior to disagreement was introduced by an amendment via the Finance Act, 1993, and was not mandatory or applicable during the assessment year in question. Furthermore, since the purchases and sales were largely on a cash basis and unverifiable, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the assessing officer's findings. The reference and application were consequently dismissed as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the estimate of sales when complete records were maintained in accordance with excise regulations?
  • Whether the Assessing Officer was legally bound to issue a notice under section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 before discarding the assessee's books of accounts for the assessment year under consideration?
  • Whether cash purchases and sales lacking verifiable supporting evidence justify the rejection of the declared version and estimation of gross profit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mughal Technical Industries (Pvt) Lahore vs C. I.T. Central Zone, Lahore1996 P.C.T.L.R. 266 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mughal Technical Industries (Pvt) Lahore vs C. I.T. Central Zone, Lahore1996 P.C.T.L.R. 8 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mubbasher Ahmad vs Talat Khurshid and others1996 CLC 1963 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-23
  Family Court jurisdictionAhmadi communitydissolution of marriagewrit petitionFamily Courts Act 1964jurisdictional objectionKhula
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged a Family Court decree dissolving a marriage, with the petitioner raising a preliminary objection that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction because both parties were Ahmadis, to whom the Family Courts Act, 1964, allegedly did not apply. The Court held that the petitioner could not raise this jurisdictional objection for the first time in writ proceedings, particularly since it was not pleaded or argued before the trial court. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Family Courts Act, 1964, does not explicitly exclude non-Muslims from its jurisdiction. In the absence of a specific special enactment governing the dissolution of marriages for the Ahmadi community, the Family Courts Act, 1964, remains the applicable law for such disputes. The Court emphasized that the reference to the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, in section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, does not restrict the Act's application solely to Muslims. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine as the objection was deemed mala fide and procedurally barred.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Family Courts Act 1964 apply to the Ahmadi community in Pakistan?
  • Can a party raise a question of jurisdiction for the first time in a writ petition when it was not pleaded before the trial court?
  • Does the reference to the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 in section 5 of the Family Courts Act 1964 limit the Act's application exclusively to Muslims?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubashir alias Goga vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1594 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-21Read full judgment →
• Mst: Mukhtiar Bibi And Another vs S.H.O., Police Station Nawan Shehr,1996 MLD 874 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-23Read full judgment →
• Mst.Shah Begum vs Afst. Shah BegumK.L.R 1996 Civil Cases 231 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khurshid vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 544 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →