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 Yousaf vs Muhammad Din1995 CLC 1094 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Ahmed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 971 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha alias Mungal Singh vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1954 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 642 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs Haq Nawaz Khan and 2 others1995 MLD 258 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs Haq Nawaz Khan And 2 Other1995 MLD 258 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1212 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The State and OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 35 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Muhammad InayatK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 542 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khaliq Alias Kheeloo vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 466 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalil vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 243 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 434 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs The State And Another1995 MLD 1266 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs The Magistrate 1St Class, Pakpattan SharifK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 547 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs S.H.O., Police Station, Yazman1995 MLD 1080 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs Fazal Kareem1995 MLD 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jewan Bhatti vs Muhammad Rafiq ChaudharyK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 402 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1181 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 658 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javaid vs Judge Special Court and others1995 P Cr. L J 666 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs Tabey Hussain1995 MLD 625 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil Khan vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax , . (1995 PTD 1239 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil Etc vs Haji Muhammad Din And SonsK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 246 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil and others vs Haji Muhammad Din & Sons1995 PLD Lahore 107 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel vs Allah Ditta1995 MLD 700 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel and another vs The Income Tax Officer/Tax1995 PTD 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel Akhtar, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 513 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jahangir Iqbal vs The State1997 MLD 47 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Jamil Ur Rehman and 6 others1995 MLD 1011 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Jamil Ur Rehman And 6 Other1995 MLD 1011 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail And Other vs Malik Muhammad Shafi And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 65 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
• Nazir Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 354 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail And Other vs Imam Hakhsh And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 605 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishfaq and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1823 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque and others vs Muhammad Hussain and others1995 MLD 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque And Others vs Muhammad Hussain And Other1995 MLD 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 2014 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1587 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Islamia University and others1995 MLD 445 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Islamia University And Other1995 MLD 445 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs District Magistrate, Sahiwal1995 P Cr. L J 1977 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal And Others vs The State1995 MLD 1333 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and others vs Khushi Muhammad through Legal Heirs1995 MLD 1886 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal And Others vs Khushi Muhammad Through Legal Heirs1995 MLD 1886 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 1639 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 160 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and another vs Directorgeneral, Lahore1995 CLC 1881 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-20
  constitutional petitioncommercializationresidential plotbuilding regulationsno-objection certificateillegal conversionbanquet hallLahore Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged an alleged order of the Director-General, Lahore Development Authority (LDA), granting permission to respondent No.2 to convert a residential plot into commercial use as a banquet hall, and the failure of the LDA to take action against such illegal conversion. The core legal question was whether a residential plot could be converted into a commercial property without complying with the mandatory requirements of the LDA Building Regulations, 1984, including obtaining a No-Objection Certificate from owners of adjoining properties and paying the prescribed fee, and whether a directive from the Chief Minister could override these statutory regulations. The Lahore High Court held that respondent No.2 was utilizing the premises for commercial purposes in violation of the LDA Building Regulations as no formal commercialization was ever legally allowed due to the lack of required NOCs and fees, and that the Chief Minister's directive could not bypass these rules. The Court accepted the writ petition and directed the LDA to take immediate legal action against respondent No.2 to stop the illegal commercial use of the property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a residential plot can be converted into commercial property without the prior approval of the Director-General of the Lahore Development Authority and fulfillment of mandatory prerequisites under the building regulations?
  • Can a directive issued by the Chief Minister override or dispense with the statutory requirements of obtaining a No-Objection Certificate from adjoining property owners for commercialization?
  • Does the owner of an adjoining property have the locus standi to maintain a constitutional petition against the illegal commercial use of a residential plot causing nuisance and violating building regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 635 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal alias Balu and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 116 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 415 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs The Station House Officer, Police Station, Peoples1995 P Cr. L J 980 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Mst. Asia Parveen1997 MLD 142 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 621 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1911 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs The State and another1995 P Cr. L J 259 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim And Others vs The State1995 MLD 1839 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Yameen and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 58 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Yameen And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 415 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1833 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The Secretary Health, Government of the Punjab, Lahore And 5 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 569 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The Ilaqa Magistrate 1ST Class, Lahore and 41995 P Cr. L J 97 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-09
  physical remanddischarge of accusedconstitutional jurisdictionmagisterial powerspolice investigationjudicial reviewcoram non judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by an Ilaqa Magistrate who, while considering a request for physical remand under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, discharged the accused and directed the Superintendent of Police to register a case against the complainant and the investigating officer. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate acted without lawful authority or exceeded jurisdiction by recording statements of third parties during remand proceedings and subsequently ordering police action. The High Court held that the Magistrate acted within the scope of their duties. The Court reasoned that when police seek physical remand, the Magistrate must review the case diary to determine if remand is warranted. Upon refusing remand, the Magistrate has the discretion to discharge the accused under Section 63, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, or send them to judicial custody. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a Magistrate is not precluded from initiating inquiries into police misconduct or referring matters for further investigation under Section 156, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, when evidence of excess is apparent. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate have the authority to record statements of third parties while considering an application for physical remand under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate, upon refusing physical remand, direct the police to register a case against the complainant and the investigating officer?
  • Is an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered an administrative or judicial act for the purposes of constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs S.H.O., Police Station, City Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura1995 P Cr. L J 1806 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Muhammad Iqbal and others1995 MLD 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Muhammad Iqbal And Other1995 MLD 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Ilaqa Magistrate 1ST Class, Lahore And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 390 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication and others1995 PLD Lahore 456 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 37 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-04
  Section 382-B Cr.P.C.period of detentioncommutation of sentencepresidential amnestycriminal miscellaneous applicationsentencing benefit
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioners, who were convicted for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, seeking the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners had previously been convicted and sentenced to death and life imprisonment, which were upheld by the High Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Following the commutation of the death sentences to life imprisonment due to a Presidential Order of Amnesty, the petitioners sought the statutory benefit of the period of detention spent during the trial to be counted towards their sentence. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given their circumstances. The Court, noting that the State did not oppose the application and relying on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in 'Abdul Malik v. The State', held that the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, must be extended to the petitioners, thereby allowing the application.

  Questions settled

  • Are convicts whose death sentences have been commuted to life imprisonment entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the period of detention spent during the trial count towards the sentence of life imprisonment under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1594 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R 1997 Criminal Cases 556 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 450 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Nazar EtcK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 305 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs (Mst.) Parsan Bibi And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 501 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Habib, Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 253 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gul vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 554 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghazan vs Allah Ditta Etc.K.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 173 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghazan vs Allah Ditta and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 240 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 598 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Muhammad Amin1995 PLD Lahore 15 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-20
  revisional jurisdictionrestoration of petitiondismissal for non-prosecutionconcurrent jurisdictionfalse affidavitcivil reforms
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under Order IX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the restoration of a revision petition that was dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal questions involved whether the revisional powers of the Lahore High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were withdrawn by the Civil Laws (Reforms) Act XIV of 1994, and whether sufficient cause was shown for the restoration of the petition. The Court held that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was not withdrawn by the said Act, but rather concurrent revisional powers were restored to the District Courts, meaning the High Court retained its jurisdiction. However, the application for restoration was dismissed because the applicant failed to explain his own absence, made false claims regarding his presence in court, and filed a false affidavit in support thereof. The key principle laid down is that the Civil Laws (Reforms) Act XIV of 1994 did not oust the concurrent revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and an applicant seeking restoration must establish sufficient cause and explain the absence of all concerned parties without relying on false pleas.

  Questions settled

  • Were the revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 withdrawn by the Civil Laws (Reforms) Act XIV of 1994?
  • Does the District Court exercise revisional jurisdiction concurrently with the High Court under the amended Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a revision petition maintainable in the High Court against an order passed by the District Court in its revisional jurisdiction?
  • Can a civil revision petition be restored when the applicant fails to explain his own absence and relies on a false affidavit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Khalid Masood Ahmad Khan and others1995 CLC 256 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs The State and 4 others1995 PLD Lahore 535 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs S.H.O., Police Station Cantt., Multan1995 P Cr. L J 1980 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1572 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Province of Punjab through Secretary Finance, Lahore and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 908 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Mst. Sattar Bibi and another1995 PLD Lahore 321 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-20
  cancellation of documentspecific relieflimitation periodvoidable instrumentpower of attorneyforgeryrevision petitionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a suit seeking the cancellation of a General Power of Attorney and a sale deed, alongside a claim for possession, on grounds of forgery. The trial court dismissed the suit as time-barred, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The core legal question concerned whether the suit fell under Section 39 or Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, and the consequent limitation period under the Limitation Act 1908. The High Court held that because the plaintiff sought cancellation of a voidable instrument, the suit was governed by Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, and Article 92 of the Limitation Act 1908, rather than Section 42. Consequently, the suit was time-barred as it was filed beyond three years of the plaintiff's knowledge of the registration. Furthermore, the Court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving forgery, as she neglected to produce the document or utilize procedural mechanisms to compel its production. The revision petition was allowed, and the suit was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for the cancellation of a registered document governed by Section 39 or Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Does Article 92 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to a suit seeking the cancellation of a registered sale deed?
  • Can a plaintiff succeed in a claim of forgery without producing the alleged forged document or utilizing court procedures to compel its production?
  • Is the limitation period for a suit determined by the premier relief claimed in the plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Sheikh and another vs Punjab Small Industries1995 PLC (C.S.) 1230 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir And 3 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 119 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Banaras vs S.H.O. and others1995 P Cr. L J 94 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-28
  quashment of FIRfree-will marriagesui jurispubertyOffence of Zinafundamental right of marriageArticle 199abuse of process of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court sought the quashment of FIR No. 439 of 1994 registered under Sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Shorkot City, District Jhang, concerning the alleged abduction of an alleged sui juris female. The main issue before the Court was whether criminal proceedings for abduction and Zina could be sustained when the alleged abductee had validly contracted marriage with the petitioner of her own free will and attained the age of puberty/majority under Muslim law. The Court observed that according to her statement, birth certificate, school leaving certificate, and relevant Islamic law principles, the female was sui juris, had attained puberty, and had lawfully married the petitioner three months prior to the FIR without any abduction. Holding that the State must safeguard the right of marriage under Article 35 of the Constitution and that the impugned prosecution constituted mala fide harassment incapable of ending in conviction, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an FIR registered under Sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 can be quashed under Article 199 of the Constitution where the alleged abductee confirms a valid, voluntary marriage?
  • Whether a female who has attained puberty is deemed an adult under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and competent to contract marriage of her own free will?
  • Whether the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution can intervene and quash criminal proceedings or police investigation that violate the constitutional protection of marriage under Article 35?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Banaras vs S.H.O, EtcK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 79 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1807 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore and OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 106 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Ahmad alias Ahmi and 6 others1995 MLD 99 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Ahmad Alias Ahmi And 6 Other1995 MLD 99 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem vs Mst. Bashiran1995 MLD 1937 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 1660 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1660 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam And 3 Others vs The State1995 MLD 582 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayyub and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 684 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1816 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The Government of the Punjab through Home1995 PLC (C.S.) 706 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Subregistrar and others1995 CLC 674 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21
  constitutional petitionstamp dutyvaluation tableregistration of sale-deedspecific performance decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions challenging the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register sale-deeds executed by a Civil Court pursuant to decrees for specific performance unless ad valorem stamp duty was paid based on a valuation table prepared by the Collector under the Stamp Act, 1899. The core legal question was whether stamp duty could be demanded based on a valuation table that had not been duly notified to the public as required by law. The Lahore High Court held that since an earlier judgment of the Court had already declared the valuation table to be of no legal effect due to a lack of proper notification to the general public, the authorities could not lawfully demand stamp duty based on it. The Court accepted the petitions, declaring the demand for stamp duty based on the unnotified valuation table to be without lawful authority, and directed the respondents to register the documents upon payment of stamp duty according to the consideration value mentioned in the documents themselves.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Sub-Registrar can refuse to register a sale-deed executed by a Civil Court on the ground of non-payment of stamp duty based on a valuation table?
  • Is a valuation table prepared by the Collector under section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 legally effective without being notified to the general public?
  • Can ad valorem stamp duty be demanded on the basis of an unnotified valuation table?
  Read full judgment →