Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• (Mst.) Karamat Bibi vs Board of Revenue, Etc.K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 29 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-04Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Hamida Bibi Etc vs Abdul Majid Etc(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 149) · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
• (Mrs.) Tahmina Daultana vs Hafiz Naeem-Ud-Din1996 P.C.T.L.R. 479 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• (Dr.) Syed Altaf Hussain vs Siddique Ahmad ChaudharyK.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 90 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
• (DR.) Abrar Hussain Ahmed Khan And Other vs Government of Punjab, EtcK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 186 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (CH.) Irshad Ahmad Virk vs Commissioner And Others1996 P.C.T.L.R. 200 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-12Read full judgment →
• Zulifqar Ali Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 113 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-07Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqur, Etc. vs Mst. Kausar, Etc.1997 KLR Civil Cases 10 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-20Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 251 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-14Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 323 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-28Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar and 5 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1454 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali, Patwari vs Government of the Punjab through the Secretary, Board of Revenue and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 554 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Imdad1995 MLD 1507 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Imda1995 MLD 1507 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Shah vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1654 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali And Other vs Government of Punjab And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 69 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali alias Jaffa vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1652 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
• Zuhra Khatoon vs S.H.O. Police Station PEOPLE's Colony, Gujranwala1995 MLD 1637 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
• Zia Muhammad Shah vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
• Zia Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 7 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-10Read full judgment →
• Zeenat Taxtile Mills Ltd. vs Joint Official LiquidatorsK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 469 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
• Zakir vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1009 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
• Zahooran Bibi vs SHO Police Station City VehariK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 553 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-20Read full judgment →
• Zahoor-Ul-Hasan vs Faqir Sain And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 87 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Zahoor-Ul-Hasan vs Faqir Sain and 6 others1995 CLC 487 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Elahi vs Mst. Irshad Begum and another1995 CLC 1900 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1715 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-11
  criminal appealcounterfeit currencyfake currency notedoubtful recoverybenefit of the doubtacquittalcontradictory evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the conviction of the appellant under Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Magistrate Section 30, Rawalpindi. The prosecution alleged that the appellant purchased shoes using a fake one-thousand-rupee currency note. The core legal question centered on whether the prosecution proved the recovery of the counterfeit currency note and its case beyond a shadow of doubt, particularly when the disputed currency note bore a conspicuous stamp showing it was previously impounded in another police case and material contradictions existed in the testimony and investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the recovery and the charge due to glaring contradictions, lack of proper sealing procedures, and the fact that the note was already part of another case property. The court laid down the principle that where recovery of case property is doubtful and contradictory, and no evidence explains how an impounded article from a separate case came to be recovered anew, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused, resulting in acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellant's conviction under Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained when the alleged counterfeit currency note was already impounded in another police case?
  • Does a failure by the prosecution to prove the recovery of an incriminating article beyond a shadow of doubt entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Can reliance be placed on eye-witness and police testimonies that contain material contradictions regarding the arrest and recovery of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1500 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad Khan vs Mukhtar Ahmad1995 MLD 1858 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 1509 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1509 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
• Zaheer-Ud-Din, Etc. Versus (Mst.) Khurshida Begum, Etc. Zaheer-Ud-Din, Etc. vs (Mst.) Khurshida Begum, EtcK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 584 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zaheer Aslam vs The Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan through ViceChancellor and 2 others1995 CLC 1152 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-11
  educational institutionsadmission policymerit formuladiscriminatory treatmentconstitutional petitionwrit of mandamus
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Lahore High Court through a constitutional petition filed by Zaheer Aslam, who challenged the merit formula prescribed for admission to the M.Sc. Computer Science program by the Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University, Multan, as contained in its prospectus for the 1994-95 session. The petitioner contended that the formula—which calculated merit based on total B.Sc. marks plus National Cadet Core (NCC) marks, without adding subject-specific marks for Computer Science—was discriminatory and violated fundamental rights under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, drawing a comparison to other departments where subject-specific marks were added. The core legal question was whether the university's prescribed merit formula for M.Sc. Computer Science admission was discriminatory and liable to be altered by the court. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since graduates with Mathematics and Statistics were also eligible for M.Sc. Computer Science without receiving weightage for those specific subjects, denying subject-weightage to Computer Science graduates was fair and non-discriminatory. The court laid down the principle that a university's academic criteria and prospectus formulae cannot be interfered with or rewritten by a court through a writ petition when such rules apply uniformly to all eligible candidates and do not cause unlawful discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a university's admission merit formula for a post-graduate program is discriminatory if it does not add subject-specific undergraduate marks when graduates from other eligible disciplines also receive no such subject weightage?
  • Can the High Court alter or direct the revision of a university's academic prospectus and admission criteria through a writ of mandamus?
  • Whether the exclusion of subject-specific undergraduate marks in calculating merit for M.Sc. Computer Science admission infringes fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Aslam vs The Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan Through ItsK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 156 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zaheer Ashraf and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1706 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-01Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1837 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-04Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ullah Alias Phola vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 414 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-26Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1069 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and others vs Yaqoob and 5 others1995 CLC 7 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-04
  civil revisiongift deedburden of proofexecution of documentregistration of deedinheritancequestion of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Chiniot, which set aside the trial court's decision and decreed the plaintiff's suit for the cancellation of a registered gift deed. The core legal question was whether the voluntary execution and valid registration of the gift deed by the deceased donor in favour of his daughter had been satisfactorily proved. The Lahore High Court held that the beneficiary failed to discharge the heavy burden of proving the voluntary execution of the gift deed, especially given that the beneficiary did not enter the witness box, crucial attesting witnesses belonged to a far-off village, and the transaction disinherited the donor's only son and other daughters without any justifiable cause. The court established the key principles that registration of a deed is not equivalent to proof of its execution, that in cases of denial, the beneficiary must affirmatively prove voluntary execution, and that findings of fact by the lower appellate Court based on proper appraisal of the record are binding in revision. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether registration of a gift deed is equivalent to proof of its valid execution when execution is denied?
  • Upon whom lies the onus to prove the execution and valid registration of a gift deed executed by an illiterate and aged donor?
  • Can the non-appearance of the beneficiary in the witness box to depose about the voluntary execution of a gift deed affect the validity of the transaction?
  • Are concurrent or divergent findings of fact by the lower appellate court binding upon the High Court in civil revision proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and others vs The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range, Multan and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 734 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 1526 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1526 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and 3 others vs Ghulam Abid and 2 others1995 MLD 1285 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal And 3 Others vs Ghulam Abid And 2 Other1995 MLD 1285 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali vs The StateK.L.R 1997 Civil Cases 415 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ahmad, Etc. vs Govt of Pakistan1997 KLR Civil Case 24 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
• Yara vs Haji Umar Hayat And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 411 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-04Read full judgment →
• Yaki Khan & Umer Hayat vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 255 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
• Workers Union (Regd.) C.B.A. United Bank Ltd. Vehari Zone through General Secretary vs Registrar of Trade Union, MultanK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 150 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Wazeer Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 229 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-21Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority Through its Chairman vs Barkat Ali and 2 others1995 CLC 654 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority and others vs Mian1995 PLD Lahore 56 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-31
  dishonest abstraction of energyElectric Inspector jurisdictiondetection billelectricity theftmeter correctnessconstitutional petitionfederal and provincial laws repugnancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This Full Bench reference before the Lahore High Court addressed whether the Electric Inspector has jurisdiction under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act 1910 to adjudicate upon charges determined by WAPDA under section 26-A for the dishonest abstraction of energy. The petitioner WAPDA had raised substantial detection bills against industrial consumers for electricity theft committed by bypassing metering equipment and directly connecting supply lines. The consumers challenged these bills before the Electric Inspector, contending that such assessment fell within the purview of sections 24(2) and 26(6). The Court analyzed the statutory framework and held that the jurisdiction of the Electric Inspector under section 26(6) is strictly limited to determining whether a meter or measuring apparatus 'is or is not correct'. It does not extend to scrutinizing assessments or detection bills issued under section 26-A for dishonest abstraction or bypassing of meters, where no metering defect is involved. Furthermore, section 24(2) does not independently confer a right of reference to the Electric Inspector. Consequently, the Full Bench answered the reference in the negative, ruling that the Electric Inspector lacks jurisdiction in such matters and aggrieved consumers must seek their remedy before a civil court of plenary jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Electric Inspector has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the determination of charges made by WAPDA under section 26-A for dishonest abstraction of energy?
  • Does section 26(6) of the Electricity Act 1910 apply to cases where the metering equipment has been completely bypassed for the dishonest abstraction of energy?
  • Does section 24(2) of the Electricity Act 1910 independently confer a general right of reference to the Electric Inspector for any billing dispute?
  • Which forum is appropriate for a consumer wishing to challenge a detection bill issued for the dishonest abstraction of electricity under section 26-A of the Electricity Act 1910?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority And Others vs Mian Ghulam1995 MLD 480 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-08
  recovery suittortious actsdamagesconcurrent findingsrevisional jurisdictionelectricity disconnectionloss of goodwill
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent against the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) for the illegal removal and retention of four pole plastic signboards and for compensation regarding loss of goodwill and mental torture due to tortious acts. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff after finding that electricity bills had been paid well before the due date and disconnection notices were issued arbitrarily. The lower appellate court affirmed these findings. In revision before the Lahore High Court, the petitioners contended that the removal was justified for non-payment, that compensation for the signboards and damages for remote consequences were improperly awarded, and that the quantum of damages was unproved. The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact regarding the timely payment of dues cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction, that the unlawful seizure of property creates liability for its price, that the case involved tortious acts alongside breach of contract, and that in the absence of contrary evidence by the defendants, the courts below rightly assessed the quantum of damages. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts can be interfered with by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction?
  • Whether compensation for remote and indirect damage can be awarded in a suit founded on tortious acts rather than a mere breach of contract?
  • Whether failure of a plaintiff to furnish detailed evidence for ascertaining the exact quantum of damages justifies granting only nominal damages?
  • Whether a utility authority is justified in removing signboards without waiting for the last date of payment of electricity charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority And Other vs MianK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 74 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Wasim Dar vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 58 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
• Waryam vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1130 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
• Waris Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 695 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
• WAPDA through Its Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore And Other vs Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Labour &.Service Cases 173 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• WAPDA and others vs The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1995 PLC 287 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-22Read full judgment →
• WAPDA and others vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-20Read full judgment →
• WAPDA And Others vs Mian Abdul Aziz1995 MLD 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 310 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryinvestigation reportmedical evidenceexit woundbenefit of doubtcommencement of trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 324, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident where two individuals were killed by gunfire. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the commencement of the trial, given that multiple investigations by different police agencies had declared him innocent and medical evidence suggested the injury attributed to him was an exit wound. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that the case constituted a matter of further inquiry. The Court established that the opinion of gazetted police officers declaring an accused innocent cannot be dismissed casually and that the benefit of doubt arising from such reports and medical evidence must extend to the accused at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the mere commencement of a trial or the scheduling of evidence does not constitute a valid ground to refuse bail to an accused who is otherwise entitled to it.

  Questions settled

  • Does the commencement of a trial or the scheduling of evidence constitute a valid ground to refuse bail?
  • Can the opinion of gazetted police officers declaring an accused innocent be disregarded at the bail stage?
  • Should the benefit of doubt arising from conflicting police investigation reports and medical evidence be extended to an accused seeking bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad Etc . vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 609 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad and another vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 800 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
• Walayat vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1638 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
• Walayat vs (Mst.) Kanfez FatimaK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 230 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
• Walayat Shah vs The State And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 361 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-06Read full judgment →
• Wagha vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 57 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
• University of the Punjab vs Ghulam MustafaK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 477 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-11Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Masih vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 319 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-27Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 634 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• Uaqat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 573 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-10Read full judgment →
• U. B. L. vs Messrs Farrukh Hayat Tiwana And Other1995 MLD 1895 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-13Read full judgment →
• U. B. L. vs Farrukh Hayat Tiwana and others1995 MLD 1895 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-13Read full judgment →
• Town Committee, Malakwal Tehsil Phalia, District Gujrat through Chairman vs Akhtar Ali and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 720 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
• The State vs Rashid Ahmad1995 P Cr. L J 2001 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Nazar HussainK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 601 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Bakhsh and others1995 P Cr. L J 1959 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-05Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Aslam And 5 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 715 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Ashraf, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 378 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Arshad Javed1995 MLD 667 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-07Read full judgment →
• The State vs Latif and others1995 P Cr. L J 286 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-01Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ghulam GhausK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 361 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-06Read full judgment →
• The State vs Editor, Printer, Publisher and Proprietor of Daily 'Muslim', Islamabad1995 PLD Lahore 147 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-04
  contempt of courtseparation of judiciary from executiveunconditional apologydischarge of noticenewspaper editorialjudicial independencebinding precedent
  Summary & questions settled

  Show-cause notices were issued under Section 4 read with Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 to the Editor, Printer, Publisher, and Proprietor of the daily newspaper 'The Muslim' regarding an editorial published on 15 April 1994. The editorial criticized the separation of the Judiciary from the Executive and cast serious aspersions on the judiciary and judicial system. The core legal questions were whether the publication constituted contempt and whether the respondents' written apologies and corrective measures justified the discharge of the contempt notice. The Lahore High Court emphasized that the separation of the judiciary from the executive is a constitutional mandate under Article 175(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and highlighted the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions under Articles 189 and 190. However, observing that the respondents submitted an unconditional written apology, made sufficient amends by supporting the constitutional mandate in a subsequent editorial, and noting no objection from the State, the Court accepted the apology and discharged the contempt notices.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contempt proceedings initiated against the editor, printer, and publisher of a newspaper can be discharged upon submission of a written apology accompanied by subsequent corrective editorial commentary?
  • Whether judgments and directions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the separation of the judiciary from the executive are binding on all executive and judicial authorities under Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution?
  • Whether judicial proceedings conducted by executive magistrates after the judicially mandated deadline for judicial separation are lawful and valid?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Federal Investigation Agency Ual, Islamabad vs Ch. Shujaat Hussain and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 701 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
• The State Life Insurance vs Ch. Abdul Ghani1995 MLD 627 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
• The President of Pakistan vs Ms. Benazir Bhutto1995 CLC 418 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
• The Cooperative Model Town Society vs Punjab Labour Appellate1995 PLC 655 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-06
  Cooperative Societies ActRoad Transport Workers OrdinanceIndustrial Relations OrdinanceJurisdiction of Labour CourtDispute touching the business of the societyWorkmanTermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the Cooperative Model Town Society challenging the orders of the Punjab Labour Court and Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had accepted the grievance petition of a bus conductor whose services were terminated by the society. The core legal questions involved whether a bus conductor employed by a cooperative society falls within the definition of a workman under the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961 and the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and whether the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is barred under sections 54 and 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 in service matters. The Lahore High Court held that the employee was a worker under the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961 and that service matters of employees do not constitute disputes 'touching the business of the society' under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, thereby preserving the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The Court laid down the principle that the expression 'dispute touching the business of the society' excludes internal service and employment disputes, and that the definitions of industry and establishment under labor laws encompass activities carried out by cooperative societies employing workers for hire or reward.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service matters of employees of a cooperative society constitute a dispute touching the business of the society under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925?
  • Does the jurisdiction of the Labour Court stand barred under section 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 in relation to the termination of a society's employee?
  • Is a bus conductor employed by a cooperative society operating a transport service considered a worker under the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961?
  • Do the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance apply to a cooperative society employing workers for its aims and objects?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone, Lahore vs Mst.1995 PTD 1085 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-19
  Income TaxLimitationSection 3 Limitation ActReference ApplicationDismissal in LimineStatutory DutyAppellate Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed the department's reference on the ground of limitation. The department contended that the issue of limitation could not be considered at the preliminary stage of admitting the reference application before the High Court. The High Court rejected this argument, observing that under Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908, the statutory provisions governing limitation are mandatory and peremptory. The Court held that an obligation is cast upon courts of first instance and appeal to take notice of limitation and dismiss time-barred suits, appeals, or applications, regardless of whether limitation is set up as a defence by the parties or raised in the pleadings. Consequently, the High Court held that the department's reference before the Tribunal was barred by limitation, affirmed the Tribunal's decision, and dismissed the reference application in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can consider and decide the issue of limitation at the stage of admitting a reference application?
  • Whether a court is bound under Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908 to dismiss a time-barred application even if limitation has not been pleaded by the parties?
  • Can the mandatory statutory requirement of limitation be waived by the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Tehmina Bashir vs Abdul Rauf And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 341 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Tauheed Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Government of Punjab and others1995 MLD 912 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
• Tauheed Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Government of Punjab And Other1995 MLD 912 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
• Tauheed Traders (Pvt) Ltd. vs Govt. of Punjab EtcK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 257 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
• Tariq Majeed Chaudhry vs Lahore Stock Exchange (Guarantee) Ltd.1995 PLD Lahore 572 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood vs The State and others1995 P Cr. L J 2011 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
• Tariq Javed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 975 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
• Tariq Alias Tara, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 444 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-19Read full judgment →
• Tanvir Hussain vs Sohail Fazal1995 MLD 468 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-09Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs Superintendent of Police, Khanewal, Districtkhanewal And OtherK.L.R. 1987 Criminal Cases 589 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs Station Commandar Pakistan Army, Cantt. Sialkot1995 CLC 1640 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →