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.

• Taj Muhammad, Etc. vs District Collector Khanewal, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 602 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-19Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Salahuddin and others1995 CLC 1269 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →
• Taj Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 236 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-09Read full judgment →
• Taj Company Limited. vs Collector of Customs and others.PTCL 1995 CL. 231 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mahmood vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 142 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-13Read full judgment →
• Tahir Javed and others vs Abdul Razzaq and others1995 PLD Lahore 261 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31
  private complaintsummoning orderrecording of evidencejudicial mindCode of Criminal ProcedureMagistratecriminal trialillegality
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment consolidates three criminal petitions challenging summoning orders issued by Magistrates in private complaint cases. The core legal question concerns whether a Magistrate may delegate the recording of evidence and the drafting of summoning orders to a Reader or Clerk. The Court held that the provisions of Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically Sections 354 to 357, are mandatory. These provisions require a Magistrate to record evidence in their own hand or, for recorded reasons, under their dictation and in their presence to ensure the continuous application of a judicial mind. The Court found that the Magistrates in these cases failed to comply with these mandatory requirements, rendering the summoning orders illegal and without lawful authority. The principle laid down is that the delegation of judicial functions—specifically the recording of evidence—to subordinates is an illegality not curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the summoning orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded for fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of Sections 354 to 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory regarding the recording of evidence by a Magistrate?
  • Can a Magistrate delegate the recording of evidence and the drafting of a summoning order to a Reader or Clerk?
  • Is the failure of a Magistrate to record evidence in their own hand or under their dictation a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure of a Magistrate to personally record evidence in a criminal case indicate a lack of application of judicial mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Alias Sain Lodhi vs The State1995 MLD 1267 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Syeda Shahida Tasleem vs The Province of Punjab and others1995 PLD Lahore 110 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15
  constitutional petitionminor mineralsauction of lease rightsnegotiation with bidderslocus poenitentiaeadministrative lawmala fidesre-auction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the orders of the Licencing Authority, Appellate Authority, and Revisional Authority regarding the grant of excavation lease rights for minor minerals. Following an initial auction, the Licencing Authority had initiated negotiations under Rule 15 of the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990. After the petitioners' predecessor died during negotiations, the Authority ordered a re-auction on 11-5-1992 and issued notices accordingly. However, during the pendency of an appeal by respondent No. 5, the Licencing Authority unilaterally withdrew its re-auction order without stating reasons and granted the lease rights to respondent No. 5 via private negotiations for Rs. 7,00,000, ignoring a higher offer of Rs. 12,00,000 and excluding the legal heirs and other bidders.

  The High Court held that the Licencing Authority acted beyond its powers in withdrawing an order that had already taken effect. Furthermore, conducting negotiations exclusively with one bidder without notice to other contestants violated Rule 15 and demonstrated mala fides. The impugned orders were declared void, and a re-auction was directed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a licensing authority lawfully withdraw an order for re-auction after it has already taken effect and been acted upon by issuing notices to the parties?
  • Is an administrative order recalling a previous order legally sustainable if it fails to disclose any reasons for such withdrawal?
  • Whether lease rights can be validly granted under Rule 15 of the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990 through negotiations conducted exclusively with one bidder to the exclusion and without notice of other participating bidders or their legal heirs?
  • Does the acceptance of a lower bid through private negotiations constitute a violation of law and smack of mala fides when a significantly higher offer is on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahoor-Ul-Hassan Naqvi vs Director, Administration, North, Punjab Highway Department, Lahore and 4 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 557 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Yusuf Ali Shah vs Mst. Rehmat Elahi1995 MLD 1085 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Sikandar Ali and anothers vs Azhar and 6 others1995 CLC 493 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Riffat Askari vs The State through the Special Prosecutor, Appointed under Section 17 of the Ehtesab Ordinance, 1996 And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 257 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Taqi Shah vs Sadaqat Ali Khan1995 MLD 211 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Nadeem Abbas Alias Pappoo Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 587 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Munir vs Mst. Anwar Begum1995 MLD 682 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Iqbal Shah anothers vs Member, Board of Revenue and 4 others1995 CLC 583 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-14
  promissory estoppelState land allotmentconstitutional petitiongovernment policyadministrative lawevacuee propertyMartial Law Administrator
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order issued by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, which withdrew previous directives for the allotment of State land to the petitioner as a reward for his services in unearthing a major fraud involving evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the Board of Revenue possessed the authority to unilaterally withdraw a policy decision regarding land transfer that had been approved by the Governor/Martial Law Administrator and acted upon by subordinate authorities. The Court held that the impugned order was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It determined that the Board of Revenue could not overrule or ignore the policy decision made by the Chief Executive, which had already crystallized into a promise. The Court emphasized that subordinate functionaries are bound to obey the orders of the Chief Executive, which are protected under the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel, ruling that the government could not withdraw from a promise once valuable rights had accrued to the petitioner. Consequently, the respondents were directed to finalize the land transfer.

  Questions settled

  • Can a subordinate government functionary unilaterally withdraw a policy decision approved by the Chief Executive?
  • Does the doctrine of promissory estoppel apply to the government when it has promised to transfer State land as a reward?
  • Are orders issued by a Martial Law Administrator protected under Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mohsin Ali Shah vs The S.H.O., Police Station Garh Maharaja1995 MLD 771 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Masood Hashmi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1907 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah vs The S.H.O., Police Station Lower Mall, Lahore and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 1566 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah vs Syed Fayyaz Mahmood1995 P Cr. L J 1257 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31
  quashment of proceedingsabuse of process of courtbreach of contractcivil disputemala fide complaintspecific performanceinherent powers of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of proceedings in a complaint case pending under sections 406 and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings could be quashed when they arose out of a civil dispute (breach of contract) and were initiated with mala fide intent to harass the accused and coerce a settlement in pending civil litigation. The Lahore High Court held that a mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence and that continuing criminal proceedings under such circumstances constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. The High Court established the principle that while civil and criminal proceedings can simultaneously exist, a criminal complaint manifestly tainted by malice, arising from a civil dispute, and lacking essential ingredients of a criminal offence is liable to be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the underlying dispute is essentially of a civil nature?
  • Does a mere breach of an agreement to sell give rise to criminal prosecution for criminal breach of trust or criminal intimidation?
  • What are the powers of a trial Magistrate under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused before recording evidence?
  • Can a criminal complaint filed as a counter-blast to pressure an accused in pending civil litigation be maintained?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah vs (Syed) Fayyaz MahmoodK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 481 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Khasiat Hussain Shah vs The StateK.L.R 1997 Criminal Cases 505 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Ikhlaq Hussain and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1114 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Mohy-Ud-Din Shah vs Government of Punjab and others1995 CLC 1998 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Aslam Ali Sabzwari vs Govt. of the Punjab Local Govt. and RuralK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 555 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Ali Raza Asad Abidi vs MR. Justice Muhammad Ilyas, Acting Chief1995 MLD 1938 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Raza Asad Abidi vs Mr. Justice Muhammad Ilyas Acting1995 MLD 2022 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-30
  acting governorpermanent vacancyconstitutional interpretationseparation of powersexecutive and judiciarystop-gap arrangementcontingency provisionwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions challenged the appointment of the Acting Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court as the Acting Governor of the Punjab following the death of the incumbent Governor, on the grounds that the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 did not visualize acting appointments for permanent vacancies caused by death, and that such an appointment violated the principle of separation of the judiciary from the executive. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions in limine, holding that the unexpected death of a sitting Governor constitutes a contingency covered under Article 101(5) of the Constitution, empowering the President to make stop-gap arrangements for the discharge of gubernatorial functions. The Court ruled that constitutional provisions must be interpreted harmoniously to avoid a vacuum in executive authority, and that a temporary acting appointment of a judge does not breach the separation of powers as any qualified person may be appointed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the President of Pakistan has the lawful authority under Article 101(5) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to appoint an Acting Governor when a permanent vacancy occurs due to the death of a sitting Governor?
  • Does the appointment of a sitting High Court judge or Acting Chief Justice as an Acting Governor violate the constitutional mandate requiring the separation of the judiciary from the executive?
  • Can provisions of the Constitution relating to gubernatorial appointments be interpreted to preclude temporary stop-gap arrangements in unforeseen contingencies not explicitly detailed in Article 104?
  • Does an Acting Governor appointed to fill a temporary vacancy qualify as a successor or predecessor under Articles 260 and 261 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sunny Flying Coach Service vs Government of Punjab and others1995 CLC 1992 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-22Read full judgment →
• Sultan vs Yara and others1995 MLD 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Sultan vs Yara And Other1995 MLD 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Sultan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 625 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-12
  post-arrest bailZina Ordinancedelayed FIRprohibitory clauseabductioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following allegations of abduction involving the complainant's wife. The core legal question before the court was whether, given the circumstances of the case and the evidentiary record, the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail. The court observed that the petitioner was not armed with any weapon during the alleged incident. Furthermore, the court noted an inordinate and unexplained delay of approximately 22 days in lodging the First Information Report. Upon reviewing the record, the court determined that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that where there is an unexplained, inordinate delay in reporting an offence and the accused is not alleged to have been armed, bail may be granted if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for the grant of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail if the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of weapons in the possession of an accused during an alleged abduction influence the court's decision on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan vs (Mst.) Janat Bibi, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 203 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-30Read full judgment →
• Sultan Muhammad, Etc. vs Sajawal Khan, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 561 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
• Sultan and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 671 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-16Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmed vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1995 MLD 502 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmed vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1995 MLD 502 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad vs The State1995 MLD 1262 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-14Read full judgment →
• Sulleh Khan vs Subhan Khan and others1995 CLC 717 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• Suleman vs Fateh Naseeb and others1995 P Cr. L J 1543 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-17
  re-investigationcriminal revisionchallandeletion of offencetrial procedurepowers of policesection 265-K Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, who, while exercising jurisdiction under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, deleted an offence under section 17(6)79 and remanded the case to the Illaqa Magistrate. The core legal questions were whether the police possess the authority to re-investigate a case after the submission of a challan and whether a trial court is justified in deleting an offence from the challan without recording evidence. The Court held that the police are not statutorily barred from re-investigating a case or submitting a subsequent report in supersession of an earlier one, even after a challan has been submitted. Furthermore, the Court held that a trial court lacks the jurisdiction to unilaterally delete an offence from a challan without conducting a full trial and recording evidence. The key principle laid down is that the investigation process is not limited by law, and a court must proceed with the trial based on the challan rather than prematurely deleting charges without evidentiary basis.

  Questions settled

  • Is the police authorized to re-investigate a case and submit a fresh report after the submission of the initial challan?
  • Does a trial court have the jurisdiction to delete an offence from a challan without recording evidence?
  • Can a court cancel a police report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on its own instance?
  Read full judgment →
• Subedar-Major Fazal Kareem vs Mst. Surayya Tabassum1995 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-05Read full judgment →
• Subedar Major Fazal Kareem vs Mst. Surayya Tabassum1995 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-05Read full judgment →
• Suba vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 538 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-22Read full judgment →
• State vs Ghulam Akbar Shah and 2 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 177 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-27Read full judgment →
• Star Flour Mills vs Province of Punjab, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-09Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmed and 6 others vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 2036 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-25
  quashment of proceedingsretrialSection 342 Cr.P.C.procedural irregularityprejudice to accusedacquittalSection 561-A Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought the quashment of an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, which had set aside their acquittal by a Judicial Magistrate and remanded the case for retrial due to non-compliance with Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the prosecution is entitled to seek a retrial based on procedural irregularities that do not prejudice the accused, and whether such irregularities justify setting aside an acquittal. The High Court held that the remand order was improper. It established that Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is designed for the benefit of the accused; thus, procedural irregularities not causing prejudice to the accused are curable under Section 537, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court emphasized that the prosecution cannot claim retrial based on procedural defects intended to protect the accused. Furthermore, the court noted that ordering a retrial after a protracted period, considering the ordeal already suffered by the accused, was unjustified. Consequently, the court set aside the remand order and restored the original acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the prosecution seek a retrial based on procedural irregularities that do not prejudice the accused?
  • Is a failure to properly examine an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a ground for the prosecution to demand a retrial?
  • Does Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow for the curing of procedural irregularities that do not cause prejudice to the accused?
  • Should an appellate court consider the duration of a protracted trial when deciding whether to order a retrial?
  Read full judgment →
• Slkandar vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 412 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
• Siraj Din vs Member Federal Land Commission And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 78 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-16Read full judgment →
• Sikandar and others vs Allah Yar and others1995 CLC 1253 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-04
  second appeallimited ownercustomary inheritanceancestral propertyresiduariesburden of proofShariat application
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the plaintiffs' suit regarding the inheritance of agricultural land originally held by Mst. Karam Nishan. The core legal question revolves around whether the property was ancestral and whether Mst. Karam Nishan held it as a limited owner under custom, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 2-A added by Ordinance XIII of 1983 to the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Amendment Act, 1962 to enable the plaintiffs to inherit as residuaries. The Lahore High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence to establish that the land was ancestral or that Mst. Karam Nishan held it as a limited owner from the last male owner, Ghulam Farid. Consequently, Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Amendment Act, 1962 and the cited precedents do not apply. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' dismissal of the suit. The key principle laid down is that a party claiming inheritance rights under statutory amendments pertaining to limited ownership under custom must affirmatively establish through evidence that the property was ancestral and held under such limited ownership.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 2-A added by Ordinance XIII of 1983 to the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Amendment Act, 1962 applies when land is not established as ancestral property?
  • Does a plaintiff claiming inheritance as a residuary bear the burden of proving that the female predecessor held the property as a limited owner under custom?
  • Can a second appeal succeed where the appellant fails to produce evidence to substantiate the foundational assertions made in the plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar alias Dhuni and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1522 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-23
  suspension of sentencestatutory bailpending appealmandatory reliefcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for the suspension of sentence pending appeal filed by petitioners convicted under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the suspension of sentence under section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is mandatory when an appeal has not been decided within two years of conviction, and whether the court must record reasons for granting or refusing such relief. The Court held that the provision of section 426(1-A)(c) is mandatory, using the word "shall," and creates a rule for suspension of sentence in cases where the statutory time limit has elapsed. The Court clarified that while section 426(1) grants discretionary power requiring written reasons for suspension, section 426(1-A) mandates suspension unless the court records reasons in writing to deny it. Consequently, as no valid reasons were provided by the State or complainant to justify an exception, the Court allowed the petition and suspended the petitioners' sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Is the suspension of sentence under section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory when an appeal has not been decided within two years of conviction?
  • Does the court need to record reasons in writing for granting suspension of sentence under section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the distinction between the court's discretion under section 426(1) and the mandatory requirement under section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Siddique vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 351 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-10Read full judgment →
• Siddique alias Saddi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1178 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Hayat vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 330 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-11Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Yousaf Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 230 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-23Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Bilal Corporation vs Government of PakistanK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 27 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-18Read full judgment →
• Sheraz Asghar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1456 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 263 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-27Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Government of Punjab and others1995 MLD 859 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Government of Punjab And Other1995 MLD 859 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan and others vs Muhammad Ali and others1995 MLD 547 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan And Others vs Muhammad Ali And Other1995 MLD 547 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
• Shela Rubab vs (Mst.) Nighat, Principal, Govt. Degree College forK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 484 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Naseeruddin vs Masood Hassan1995 PLD Lahore 89 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-28Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Iqbal Shafi vs Sheikh Pervaiz Alamgir Shaikh and others1995 MLD 974 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Iqbal Shafi vs Sheikh Pervaiz Alamgir Shaikh And Other1995 MLD 974 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Iqbal Shafi vs Sheikh Pervaiz Alamc.Ir SheikhK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 455 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-02Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Arif vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 628 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Saleem vs SHO, P.S. Garden Town, LahoreK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 73 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Saleem vs S.H.O., Police Station Garden Town, Lahore1995 MLD 1144 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
• Shaukat ALIPetititioner vs Secretary, Industries and Mineral1995 MLD 123 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development, Government of Punjab, Lahore And 3 Other1995 MLD 123 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Muhammad Ayub1995 MLD 1155 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Alias Bagga Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 220 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali alias Bagga and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1108 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
• Shamsul Hassan vs The State1995 MLD 1256 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-24Read full judgment →
• Shamman vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 342 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
• Shami-Ud-Din vs Federal Government of Pakistan through Chairman1995 CLC 299 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-19
  constitutional petitionillegal detentionelectricity arrearsland revenue recoverycompany liabilityhabeas corpus
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the detention of the detenue, an ex-director and ordinary shareholder of Bahawalpur Textile Mills Ltd., who was confined in civil prison under the orders of the Tehsildar/Revenue Officer WAPDA for the recovery of outstanding electricity dues owed by the company. The core legal question is whether a director or shareholder of a public limited company can be held personally liable for the company's electricity arrears and subjected to detention for the recovery thereof. The Lahore High Court held that a director of a limited company cannot be held personally liable for the dues of the company, and therefore the detention of the petitioner's brother for the company's default was illegal, unlawful, and without lawful authority. The court established the principle that WAPDA authorities must proceed against the assets and holdings of the company itself under the applicable land revenue laws rather than detaining individuals who are not personally liable as defaulters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a director or shareholder of a public limited company can be held personally liable for the electricity dues of the company?
  • Can a person who is not a personal defaulter of electricity dues be arrested and detained for the recovery of arrears owed by a corporate entity?
  • Are the assets and holdings of a company the proper subject of attachment and sale for the recovery of its electricity arrears under the Land Revenue Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamas-Ud-Din vs Muhammad SharifK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 326 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 464 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-16Read full judgment →
• Shakar Ganj Sugar Mills Ltd. through General Manager (Admn.) vs Superintendent of Police, Jhang and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 845 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Rashid Ahmad vs Lutf Ali Malik and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 717 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-28Read full judgment →
• Shahid Nadeem vs Mst. Farzana Zaheer And Another1995 MLD 218 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-27Read full judgment →
• Shahid Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 276 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-10Read full judgment →
• Shahid Iqbal vs Government of Pakistan, Islamabad through Secretary, Establishment Division and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 143 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
• Shahadat Ali vs The State EtcK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 13 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
• Shahadat Ali vs The State and others1995 MLD 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
• Shahadat Ali vs The State And Another1995 MLD 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
• Shahadat Ali alias Shahadat vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 636 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-24Read full judgment →
• Shahab-Ud-Din and others vs Mst. Mariam Bibi and others1995 MLD 45 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-23Read full judgment →
• Shahab Ud Din And Others vs Mst. Mariam Bibi And Other1995 MLD 45 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-23Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz Khan vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Okara and 61997 MLD 173 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-25Read full judgment →
• Shah Jewana Textile Mills Ltd., Lahore" vs Federal Government of1995 CLC 413 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-17Read full judgment →
• Shah Din vs The State and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 688 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
• Shah Behram and 2 others vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 610 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
• Shah Ali vs The StateK.L.R.1997 Criminal Cases 402 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-26Read full judgment →
• Shagufta Perveen And 2 Other vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, MultanK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 497 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shafqat Ullah Khan vs Naveed Shahbaz and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 1868 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-04
  habeas corpuscustody of minorGuardians and Wards ActHizanatchild custodysummary jurisdictionmother's custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a habeas corpus petition filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the petitioner-father seeking the custody of his minor son from the respondents, alleging illegal removal. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court should interfere under its summary habeas corpus jurisdiction to recover a minor child who was residing with his natural mother, particularly when guardianship proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 were already pending before a Guardian Judge. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that habeas corpus proceedings are summary in nature and not intended to resolve complex guardianship disputes or replace the ordinary remedy available before the Guardian Judge. The Court emphasized that a mother's custody of a tender-aged child is natural and primary, that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands by omitting the mother as a party and relying on disputed documents, and that questions regarding the welfare of the minor and the forfeiture of Hizanat must be properly adjudicated by the competent Guardian Judge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recover the custody of a minor when guardianship proceedings are already pending before a Guardian Judge?
  • Are the remedies under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 mutually exclusive?
  • What is the scope of the summary jurisdiction of the High Court in habeas corpus petitions involving the custody of a minor?
  • Whether a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable when the minor is residing with the natural mother?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafaqat Ali Alias Fatta vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 128 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-13Read full judgment →
• Shad Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 275 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-12Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Khan and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 239 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
• Shabbir and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 117 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →