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.

• Shabbir Ali vs The Sessions Judge, Jhelum and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 245 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muzaffar Ali vs Haji Jehangir Khan And Another1995 MLD 73 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• SH. Muhammad Aslam and Other vs Sameera Amir. Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 146 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
• Sh. Haji Ijaz Ahmad vs Inam Naqshbandi1995 CLC 101 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02
  specific performancelimitation periodcontract for saleregistration of documentremand of casejudicial delayArticle 113 Limitation Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a house, where lower courts had rejected the plaint as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the suit was governed by the limitation period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and from what date such limitation should be computed. The High Court held that the suit was within time, as no specific date for performance was fixed in the agreement, and the defendant failed to rebut the plaintiff’s evidence regarding the date of refusal. The Court clarified that a suit for specific performance is distinct from a suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908, and the 30-day limitation period for the latter does not apply to the former. Furthermore, the Court established that trial courts must decide all issues in a suit rather than deciding cases in parts, a practice that causes inordinate delay and undermines judicial efficiency. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded for a decision on the remaining issues.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 30-day limitation period under Section 77 of the Registration Act 1908 apply to a suit for specific performance?
  • When does the limitation period for a suit for specific performance begin if no specific date for performance is fixed in the contract?
  • Is it legally permissible for a trial court to decide a suit based solely on a preliminary issue of limitation without addressing the remaining issues?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Habib-Ur-Rehman vs Government of the Punjab through Chief1995 PLC (C.S.) 963 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-27Read full judgment →
• Sh. Akhtar Ali vs The Federation of Pakistan1995 PTD 268 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-15
  re-assessmentincome taxquasi-judicial functionswithout lawful authoritymandate of noticeprior approvalconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, challenged the re-assessment order dated 17-6-1981 passed by the Income Tax Officer for the Assessment Year 1967-68 under section 34 of the repealed Income Tax Act, 1922. The core legal questions involved whether a re-assessment order passed without a valid notice and without the mandatory prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is lawful, and whether an Income Tax Officer can discharge quasi-judicial functions at the dictation of superior authorities. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned re-assessment order was without lawful authority and of no legal effect, as the original notice under section 34 was invalid, pertained to a different assessment year, lacked mandatory statutory approval, and the assessing officer failed to apply an independent mind, being unduly influenced by instructions from the Commissioner of Income Tax. The court laid down the principle that assessment proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature, and while subordinate officers may seek guidance in complex matters, superiors cannot issue binding directives that dictate the outcome or render the assessee's statutory right of appeal illusory.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a re-assessment order passed under section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922, without a valid notice for the relevant assessment year is sustainable in law?
  • Can an Income Tax Officer surrender their independent judgment and pass a quasi-judicial assessment order at the behest of superior administrative authorities?
  • Does the existence of an alternative statutory remedy bar the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction when an impugned order is palpably without jurisdiction and mala fide?
  • Whether prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is mandatory for initiating valid re-assessment proceedings under section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Abdul Sattar vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Zone 'C' and 2 others1995 PTD 882 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-02Read full judgment →
• SH. Abdul Rasheed vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 82 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-31Read full judgment →
• Senator Lt.General (Rtd.) Saeed Qadir vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1850 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
• Sdco vs Zulfiqar AliK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 47 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-23Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz vs Sultan1995 MLD 1806 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Khan vs Wali Dad and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1664 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
• Sardar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1465 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-20Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs Mushtaq Ahmed and others1995 MLD 448 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs Mushtaq Ahmed And Other1995 MLD 448 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Tariq vs P.T.C. and others1995 MLD 896 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Adeel vs Sarfraz ButtK.L.R 1997 Criminal Cases 91 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
• Sardar Masih Alias Dara Masih vs The State1995 MLD 1143 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
• Sardar Mashi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 422 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 175 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-23Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan vs Suleman EctK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 489 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-14Read full judgment →
• Sardar Balbir Singh Jaggi vs The Evacuee Trust Properties Board and 31995 CLC 941 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1804 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ahmad vs Govt. of Punjab, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service Cases 196 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-25Read full judgment →
• Saqib Nisar And Other vs Uaz Ahmad Chaudhary And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 263 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
• Santa Khan vs Sultan1995 MLD 490 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
• Santa Khan and others vs Muhammad Yousaf and others1995 MLD 499 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
• Santa Khan And Others vs Muhammad Yousaf And Other1995 MLD 499 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
• Sanata Khan and others vs Ahmad1995 CLC 416 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
• Salehoon vs The State1995 MLD 1269 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
• Salamat Masih vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 149 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
• Salamat Masih And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 178 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-23Read full judgment →
• Salah-Ud-Din and others vs Avon Shoes Co.1995 MLD 185 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-25Read full judgment →
• Salah Ud Din And Others vs Messrs Avon Shoes Co.1995 ML D 185 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-25Read full judgment →
• Sajjad and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 897 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-16Read full judgment →
• Sajjad alias Sohni (Police also described his alias as Akram) vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 679 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
• Saifur Rehman Khan vs Shahab Ud Din1995 MLD 1485 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-14Read full judgment →
• Saifullah Khan and others vs Collector, Bahawalpur District and others1995 MLD 1083 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-24Read full judgment →
• Saifullah Khan And Others vs Collector, Bahawalpur District And Other1995 MLD 1083 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-24Read full judgment →
• Safdar And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 382 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 141 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-17Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali through his Legal Heirs and 3 others vs Muhammad Malik and 41995 CLC 1751 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-11
  specific performanceminorityvoid agreementpartial specific performancelump sum considerationappellate stagelimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a District Judge's order remanding a suit for specific performance of sale agreements. The appellants sought enforcement of agreements executed in 1957 and 1958, which the respondents contested. The District Judge had set aside the trial court's decree, citing the minority of one promisee and limitation issues. The High Court held that while a point of law not raised in pleadings may be agitated in appeal if based on admitted facts, the agreements in question were void under Section 11 of the Contract Act, 1872, as they involved reciprocal obligations with a minor. Furthermore, the Court ruled that specific performance could not be granted partially for the remaining major promisees because the consideration was a lump sum, rendering the contract indivisible. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court affirmed that unless shares and consideration are explicitly apportioned, a contract must be performed as a whole or not at all. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the unenforceability of the agreements.

  Questions settled

  • Can a point of law be raised for the first time in appeal if it is based on admitted facts?
  • Is an agreement involving a minor and reciprocal obligations void?
  • Can a contract for the sale of land be specifically enforced in part if the consideration is a lump sum and not apportioned?
  • Does the benefit of Section 7 of the Limitation Act 1908 extend to major co-promisees in a joint agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeeda Bano and others vs Mian Muhammad Amin1995 MLD 187 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
• Saeeda Bang And Others vs Mian Muhammad Amin1995 MLD 187 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
• Saeed Wasif Ali vs Haseeb Rashid And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 453 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
• Saeed Wasif Ali vs Haseeb Rashid and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 1575 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
• Saeed Wasif Ali vs D.I.G., Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 1565 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed vs Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 8 others1997 MLD 175 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 534 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-29Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad & Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 4 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-05Read full judgment →
• Saee Muhammad and 7 others vs Superintendent of Police, Mandi1995 P Cr. L J 1666 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-10Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Masih vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 708 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Hussain vs Lahore Development Authority, Lahore through DirectorGeneral and 2 others1995 PLD Lahore 339 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29
  administrative lawvested rightslocus poenitentiaenatural justiceplot allocationLahore Development Authoritywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves several writ petitions challenging the Lahore Development Authority's (LDA) unilateral decision to withdraw plot allocations previously granted to an exemptee owner following compulsory land acquisition. The core legal question was whether the LDA possessed the authority to cancel these vested rights without providing notice or an opportunity of hearing to the exemptee or third-party transferees. The Court held that the impugned orders were illegal, inoperative, and without lawful authority. The ratio of the decision is that once an allocation order has been carried into effect and rights have vested, the authority cannot rescind the order under the principle of locus poenitentiae, as this power is only available before a decisive step is taken. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that administrative actions affecting vested rights must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice, requiring notice and a fair opportunity to be heard. The Court condemned the LDA's mechanical cancellation of rights without a preliminary probe as a violation of law and bureaucratic apathy.

  Questions settled

  • Can an administrative authority unilaterally cancel a plot allocation after it has been carried into effect and rights have vested?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae permit the withdrawal of an order once a decisive step has been taken?
  • Is an administrative order passed without notice to the affected parties violative of the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Ali Khan and another vs Abdur Rehman and 4 others1995 CLC 977 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
• Sadia Kfianum vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Bahawalpur through its Chairman and another1995 CLC 282 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• Sabir Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 622 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-15Read full judgment →
• Sabir Ali vs Maroofan Bibi Etc.K.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 18 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-12Read full judgment →
• S.B. Industries Pakistan Ltd vs Sui Notheren GasK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 387 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
• S. Sikandar Ali Etc vs Azhar EtcK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 290 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-12Read full judgment →
• S. Ghulam Dastgir and Sons vs Union Insurance Company of Pakistan1995 PLD Lahore 290 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19
  winding upinsurance companyoriginal civil jurisdictionterritorial jurisdictionspecial law vs general lawcompetent court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for the winding up of an insurance company filed before the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to entertain a winding-up petition under the Insurance Act, 1938, given that the Act defines 'Court' specifically as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district or a High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The Court held that the Lahore High Court lacks ordinary original civil jurisdiction and, therefore, is not the competent forum for such petitions under the Insurance Act, 1938. The Court determined that the special provisions regarding jurisdiction contained within the Insurance Act, 1938, prevail over the general provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petition must be filed before the District Court, which serves as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district. The petition was ordered to be returned to the petitioner for presentation before the appropriate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Lahore High Court have the jurisdiction to entertain a winding-up petition for an insurance company under the Insurance Act, 1938?
  • Which court is defined as the 'Court' competent to order the winding up of an insurance company under the Insurance Act, 1938?
  • Do the special jurisdictional provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938, prevail over the general provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, regarding winding-up petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• S. B. Industries Pak. Ltd. vs Sui Notheren Gas1995 PLD Lahore 117 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
• Rubina Gul vs Hashim Raza Khan1995 PLD Lahore 283 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
• Rohtaz Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 379 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-22Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Shafqat vs Muhammad Farooq1995 P Cr. L J 1709 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-24Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 959 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
• Riaz Alias Riaz Ahmad vs The State1995 MLD 229 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-02Read full judgment →
• Riaz alias Riaja and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 79 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-25Read full judgment →
• Riaz Alias Riaja And Another vs The State1995 MLD 79 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-25Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad, Patwari vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1144 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1376 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-28Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs The Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 14 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad And 2 Other vs SHO, P.S. City BahawalnagarK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 279 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-09Read full judgment →
• Reiimat Ali alias Rehma vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 675 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 380 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Noor and 3 others vs Ghulam Muhammad and another1995 CLC 1099 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Noor and 3 Other vs Ghulam Muhammad and OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 291 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 441 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-27Read full judgment →
• Rehman Flour Mills vs WAPDAK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 205 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →
• Rehana Kausar vs Controller of Examination1995 CLC 1317 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
• Razzaq and 13 others vs Mst. Talaat Naseem and 2 others1995 CLC 644 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-17Read full judgment →
• Razzak and others vs Mst. Tallat Naseem and others1995 CLC 57 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
• Raza Muhammad vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1190 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Raw Textile Mills Ltd vs Federal Government of Pakistan through its1995 MLD 243 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
• Ravi Textile Mills Ltd. vs Federal Government of Pakistan Through Its1995 MLD 243 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
• Rashid vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 214 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
• Rashid Mahmood vs Administrator District CouncilK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 383 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
• Rashid Alias Ahman vs The State1995 MLD 1506 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs Bashir Ahmad through Legal Heirs1995 CLC 1924 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-01
  pre-emptionTalb-e-MuwathibatTalb-e-IshhadTalabsIslamic law of pre-emptionjumping demandsecond appealright of Shufa
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land in Tehsil Samundri, District Faisalabad. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff-pre-emptor, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision. The primary legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the plaintiff had validly performed the mandatory Talabs (demands)—specifically Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad—under Islamic Law in the absence of a codified pre-emption law at the time of suit institution. The High Court affirmed that even in the absence of codified provincial statutes, pre-emption suits must strictly comply with Islamic Law requirements. The Court held that Talb-e-Muwathibat (immediate demand) must be made with utmost promptitude and without delay upon receiving knowledge of the sale in the same meeting/sitting. Collecting money or traveling before declaring the intent to pre-empt defeats the demand. Furthermore, failure to properly make and prove Talb-e-Ishhad in the presence of two truthful witnesses or via attested written notice extinguishes the substantive right of pre-emption. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is performance of Talabs mandatory for a pre-emption suit filed when no codified pre-emption statute is in force?
  • Whether making preparations such as collecting money or traveling prior to making Talb-e-Muwathibat invalidates the demand of pre-emption?
  • Does failure to prove Talb-e-Ishhad in accordance with Islamic Law extinguish the substantive right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Jameel Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 622 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Ashraf vs Punjab UniversityK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 225 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Rana Saeed Ahmad vs Controller, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan1995 MLD 1848 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-28
  retrospective application of regulationsvested rightsuniversity examination regulationsacademic standardsconstitutional petitionintra-court appealLaw Reforms Ordinance 1972
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, challenged the dismissal of a constitutional petition regarding the applicability of amended university examination regulations. The appellant, a student at Bahauddin Zakariya University, contended that an amendment to Regulation No. 18(b), which restricted the number of permissible examination attempts, could not retrospectively apply to students admitted prior to the amendment's enactment. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that students do not possess a vested right to be governed by the regulations in force at the time of their initial admission. The Court affirmed that university authorities possess the inherent power to amend regulations to maintain academic standards, proficiency, and excellence. Such amendments are applicable to all students from the date of enforcement, regardless of their admission date. The Court emphasized that it would not adopt a literal or dogmatic approach that would impede the University's ability to regulate examinations or impose an impossible burden of conducting different examinations for different cohorts, thereby upholding the validity of the amended regulation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a university retrospectively apply amended examination regulations to students admitted prior to the amendment?
  • Do students have a vested right to be governed by the examination regulations in force at the time of their admission?
  • Is a university's decision to limit the number of examination attempts to maintain academic standards subject to judicial interference?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Shahid vs Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 148 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-22Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Saleem vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 20 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Khalid vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 26 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Iqbal Khan vs The Member (Customs), Central Board1995 MLD 494 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-27Read full judgment →
• Rana Khaliq Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 596 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
• Rana Ishtiaq Mahmood and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1873 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Hussain vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Home Department and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 47 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Ashraf vs Excise and Taegation Officer And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 86 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-16Read full judgment →
• Raja Maroof Ahmad vs Qamar Zaman And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 67 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →