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.

• Miss Shazia Latif vs Vicechancellor, University of Punjab, Lahore1995 CLC 1515 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
• Miss Shazia Lath vs University' of Punjab, Etc.K.LR. 1997 Civil Cases 391 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
• Miss Shazia Altaf vs The Secretary Health Department Govt. of PunjabK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 494 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Miss Shazia Altaf vs The Director General Health Services, Punjab, LahoreK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 7 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Miss Shahnaz Akhtar vs The Government of Punjab and another1995 CLC 1555 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
• Miss Shaghufta Maan vs Islamia University, Bahawalpur and others1995 CLC 1500 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-27Read full judgment →
• Miss Nosheen Asghar vs University of Punjab and others1995 CLC 1285 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-03Read full judgment →
• Miss Maryam Saba vs Dy. D.E.O. and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1055 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-25Read full judgment →
• Miss Hina Jilani, Director of A.G.H.S. Legal Aid Cell vs Sohail Butt1995 PLD Lahore 151 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-14
  habeas corpusHizanatcustody of minorMuslim Personal Lawconstitutional petitionwelfare of minorjurisdiction of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sought the recovery of a one-year-old minor girl from her father. The core legal question concerned whether the mother, following the dissolution of her marriage, could be denied custody of the minor on the grounds that she intended to return to her native country, Tashkent, and whether the High Court could exercise summary jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 despite the existence of alternative remedies before the Family Court. The Court held that the petition was maintainable, emphasizing that the High Court’s jurisdiction in custody matters is parental and distinct from that of the Family Court. The Court ruled that under Muslim Personal Law, the mother possesses a preferential right of Hizanat (custody) for a minor girl of tender age. Furthermore, the mother is not disqualified from custody by returning to her native city post-divorce, provided the marriage was contracted there and the father’s access is guaranteed, which was ensured through formal undertakings.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore the custody of a minor despite the availability of a remedy before the Family Court?
  • Does a mother lose her right of Hizanat under Muslim Personal Law if she intends to take the minor to her native country after the dissolution of marriage?
  • Is a petition for habeas corpus regarding the custody of a minor maintainable if filed by a person other than the aggrieved parent?
  • Does the removal of a minor by the mother to her native country after the dissolution of marriage violate Article 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Fozia Mir vs Controller of Examination1995 CLC 114 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
• Mirza Mansoor Beg vs Haji Karamat Ali And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 540 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
• Mirza Mansoor Baig vs Haji Karamat Ali and others1995 PLD Lahore 280 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
• Mirza Kalb-I-Abbas vs Federation of Pakistan EtcK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 97 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-14Read full judgment →
• Mirza Kalb-I-Abbas Beig vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary1995 MLD 992 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-14Read full judgment →
• Mirza Kalb I Abbas Beig vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary1995 MLD 992 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-14Read full judgment →
• Mirza Ayub Baig, Etc. vs (Mst.) Ruqia BegumK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 729 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mirza Anwar Beg vs Home Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore1995 PLD Lahore 481 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-27Read full judgment →
• Mirza and 3 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1052 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Miran Bakhsh vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 88 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-04Read full judgment →
• Millat Tractors Ltd. vs Rahim Bakhsh1995 PLD Lahore 377 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
• Micro Electronics International (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Sohail Ahmad and 51995 CLC 1874 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-13Read full judgment →
• Mian Tariq Waheed vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 338 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-24Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Usman vs A.U. Saleem, Directorgeneral, L.Da. and 71995 P Cr. L J 494 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Usman vs A.U. Saleem Director General L.D.a, And OtherK.L.R. 1995Criminal Cases 120 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif vs Ch. Muhammad Altaf Hussain, Governor of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1995 PLD Lahore 541 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-06
  Constitutional officeservice of PakistanGovernor appointmentdisqualificationqualificationwrit petitioninterpretation of constitution
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves three consolidated writ petitions challenging the appointment of Ch. Muhammad Altaf Hussain as Governor of Punjab by the President of Pakistan. The petitioners contended that because the respondent had previously served as Governor within the preceding two years, he was in the 'service of Pakistan' and thus disqualified under Article 63(k) of the Constitution from being elected to the National Assembly, which consequently disqualified him from being appointed as Governor under Article 101(2). The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that holders of high Constitutional offices (such as the Governor, President, and Judges of the superior courts) are distinct from persons in the 'service of Pakistan' whose terms are regulated under Article 240. The Court further held that 'qualifications' under Article 62 and 'disqualifications' under Article 63 are distinct legal concepts; thus, the disqualifications in Article 63 cannot be imported into the eligibility criteria of Article 101(2) which only references qualifications.

  Questions settled

  • Is the office of the Governor of a Province an office in the 'service of Pakistan' within the meaning of Article 260 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are the disqualifications enumerated in Article 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 applicable when determining whether a person is qualified to be appointed as Governor under Article 101(2)?
  • What is the legal distinction between 'qualifications' and 'disqualifications' under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the definition of 'service of Pakistan' in Article 260 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be applied rigidly to override the specific context of other substantive constitutional provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 191 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-28Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs The Special Court and another1995 PLD Lahore 532 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Aslam vs The Auditor-General of Pakistan, Islamabad1995 PLC (C.S.) 1178 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-24
  Constitutional petitionrecovery of salarypensionsuperannuationstatus quo orderdate of birth disputeService Tribunal jurisdictionbar of jurisdictionrendered services
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged a departmental notice seeking to recover salary payments from the petitioner's pension. The petitioner had continued working as an Accounts Officer beyond his recorded superannuation date pursuant to an interim status quo order granted in a prior petition concerning date of birth correction. Upon final retirement, the respondents sought to recover the emoluments drawn between the original superannuation date and the actual retirement date, while challenging the petition's maintainability under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Lahore High Court rejected the jurisdictional objection, holding that an appeal to the Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 lies only against a final departmental order, which was absent. On the merits, the Court held that since the petitioner had actively rendered services and performed duties, the department could not recover the salary drawn, irrespective of the underlying dispute over continuation in service. The impugned recovery demand was declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer recover salary from a retired civil servant's pension for a period during which actual services were rendered pursuant to an interim court order?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to receive emoluments for duties actually performed even if there was a dispute regarding their entitlement to continue in service?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court's writ jurisdiction when no final order of a departmental authority exists to enable an appeal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Abbas Sharif and 2 others vs Federation of Pakistan1995 P Cr. L J 1224 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-28Read full judgment →
• Mian Khadim Hussain vs Mahboob Elahi Khawaja and another1995 CLC 63 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• Mian Ghulam Yaseen vs S.H.O., Police Station Chehal Yak, DistrictK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 581 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
• Mian Farooq Ahmad Sheikh And Other vs Musstehkam CementK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 108 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mian Atta Ullah vs L. D.A., Etc.K.L.R 1997 Revenue Cases 7 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
• Metropolitan Corporation Lahore vs Imtiaz Hussain Kazmi, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 281 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Zulfiqar Associates (Pvt.) Limited through Mian Hameed Ahmad1997 MLD 18 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Z. A. Traders and another vs United Bank Ltd.1997 MLD 227 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Venus Stationery Mart, Urdu Bazar, Lahore vs Member, Income-1995 PTD 794 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Venus Stationary Mart vs Member Income Tax (Judicial)K.L.R. 1995 Tax & Customs Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Unique Enterprises through Proprietor vs Assistant1995 PTD 749 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-24
  income tax refundrefund voucherdemand noticestatutory dutywithholding refundCBR circularswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to issue a refund voucher along with the demand notice following an appellate order in their favor for the assessment year 1990-91. The core legal question was whether the income tax authorities are legally bound to issue a refund voucher simultaneously with the demand notice under section 100 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and under what circumstances such a refund may be withheld. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of section 100 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 are mandatory, making the issuance of a refund voucher a statutory right rather than a concession. The Court ruled that an Income Tax Officer cannot withhold a refund at their discretion without recording well-founded reasons and obtaining the prior approval of the Commissioner as mandated under section 103 of the Ordinance. The petition was consequently accepted, and the respondents were directed to issue the due refund without further delay.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Income Tax Officer legally bound to issue a refund voucher along with the demand notice under section 100 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • What are the mandatory conditions and prerequisites required under section 103 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for withholding an admissible tax refund?
  • Are the circulars and instructions issued by the Central Board of Revenue binding on the functionaries of the Income Tax Department?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Silver Stone (Pvt.) Limited vs Rent Controller and others1995 MLD 851 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Silver Stone (Pvt.) Limited vs Rent Controller And Other1995 MLD 851 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Presson Manufacturing Limited and anothers vs Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and 2 others1995 MLD 15 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Presson Manufacturing Limited And Another vs Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources And 2 Other1995 MLD 15 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pak Asia Restaurant vs Assistant Collector, Central Excise1995 MLD 214 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Murree Brewery Co. Ltd., Rawalpindi vs The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1995 PTD 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1635 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Industrial Adhesives Ltd. vs The Deputy Collector (North), Central Excise and Sales Tax and others1995 PTD 353 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Aziz Book Depot, Lahore vs Inspecting Additional1995 PTD 399 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Aisha Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PTD 493 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-22
  presumptive taxdeemed incomeminimum taxturnover taxlegislative competenceconstitutional petitiontax evasion
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves three batches of constitutional petitions challenging the validity of sections 80-C, 80-CC, and 80-D of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, which were introduced by the Finance Acts of 1991 and 1992. The petitioners, comprising various companies, contractors, and exporters, argued that these provisions levied tax on gross turnover or presumptive/deemed income rather than actual profits, thereby exceeding the legislative competence of Parliament under Entry 47 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and violating fundamental rights. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the term 'income' must be interpreted in its widest amplitude and includes fictional, deemed, or presumptive income. The Court ruled that the legislature is fully competent to levy presumptive tax to combat widespread tax evasion and simplify procedures. Furthermore, the minimum tax rates on turnover were found to be neither discriminatory nor confiscatory, as they applied uniformly to designated classes with a rational nexus to the legislative objective.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Legislature is competent to enact presumptive or deemed income tax provisions under Entry 47 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether a tax levied on gross turnover or presumptive income constitutes a tax on income under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  • Whether minimum tax provisions on business turnover violate the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and non-confiscation of property?
  • Can the validity of an Ordinance be challenged on the ground that it was promulgated by a military usurper after the enactment of Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Meraj Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 241 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-22Read full judgment →
• Meraj Din and others vs Chief Engineer and others1995 P Cr. L J 1912 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-04
  quashment of proceedingsinherent powersbreach of peacedispute concerning possessionpending civil litigationrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of an appellate order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, which had remanded a proceedings initiated under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 back to the trial magistrate. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of a section 561-A petition against a revisional remand order and whether proceedings under section 145 can continue when a competent civil court is already seized of the matter regarding the same property and has granted an injunction regulating possession, and where no continuing apprehension of a breach of the peace exists. The Lahore High Court held that the petition under section 561-A is maintainable as inherent powers are not curtailed by revisional powers, and further held that where a civil court is already seized of the subject-matter and there is no likelihood of a breach of the peace, summary proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be maintained. The court laid down the principle that the jurisdiction of a magistrate under section 145 is contingent upon an existing apprehension of a breach of the peace and must yield to pending civil litigation determining possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable against a revisional remand order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge?
  • Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding the same property oust the jurisdiction of a magistrate under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a continuing danger of a breach of the peace a mandatory prerequisite for maintaining proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can criminal proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be utilized to settle civil disputes or run concurrently when a civil court has regulated possession?
  Read full judgment →
• MEHRAPetititioner vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1122 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
• Mehr Sultan vs Sheikh Muzaffar AhmedK.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 41 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-03Read full judgment →
• Mehr Manzoor Hussain, Secretary, Market1995 CLC 650 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mehmood Hussain vs Judge Family CourtK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 293 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-22Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Akhtar Awan vs Secretary, I & P, Government of Punjab1995 PLC (C.S.) 593 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Akhtar Awan vs Secretary I & P Government of PunjabK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 98 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
• Mehmand and 3 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1002 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
• Mehar Din vs D.S.C. and others1995 MLD 473 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
• Mehar Din vs D.S.C. And Other1995 MLD 473 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Abbas vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 346 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mauza Guru Mangat, Gulberg-III, Lahore vs Deputy SettlementK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 109 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Maulvi Qurban Ali and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1142 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-06Read full judgment →
• Maulvi Ashiq Hussain and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 131 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Malik Muhammad Nawaz and anothers vs Syed Mehmood Hussain1997 MLD 188 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-15Read full judgment →
• Mateen vs The StateK.L.R 1995 Shariat Cases 29 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-01Read full judgment →
• Maroon Rashid vs Raziuddin, Etc.K.L.R. 1907 Civil Cases 479 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-13Read full judgment →
• Markazi Union Lambardaran, Punjab Province through Its PresidentK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 59 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Maqsood vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 245 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-16Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad and 2 others vs Government of Punjab and anothers1995 CLC 842 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Maqbool vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 191 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-02Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed Alias Koola . vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 721 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-10Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs Shahzad Tabasum and another1995 CLC 358 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-31
  execution of decreelimitation periodfirst execution applicationspecific performancefraud and misrepresentationresiduary articlecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition concerns the limitation period for the first execution application of a civil court decree. The respondent obtained a decree for specific performance on June 1, 1986. An execution application was filed on May 22, 1993, nearly seven years later. The District Judge had allowed the execution, reasoning that the time spent by the petitioner challenging the decree under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 should be excluded from the limitation period. The High Court held that the first application for execution of a civil court decree is governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908, which prescribes a three-year limitation period, while Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provides an outer limit of six years for subsequent applications. The Court ruled that filing a Section 12(2) application does not constitute fraud or force under Section 48(2)(a) to extend limitation. Furthermore, the three-year period had already expired before the Section 12(2) application was even filed. Consequently, the execution application was time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • What is the limitation period for the first application for execution of a civil court decree?
  • Does the filing of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constitute fraud or force under Section 48(2)(a) to extend the limitation period for execution?
  • Does Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 govern the first application for execution of a decree?
  • Can the time spent pursuing a Section 12(2) application be excluded when computing the limitation period for an execution application?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoorulhassan alias Teetu vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1841 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 237 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-30Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs Chairman, Market Committee, Kot Lakhpat1995 MLD 244 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-16Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1139 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad Akhtar vs The Special Judge, Central, Lahore and another1995 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02
  cognizance of offencecomplaint definitionEmigration Ordinancepolice reportSpecial Judge Centralquashment of proceedingsFederal Investigation Agency
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses constitutional and quashment petitions filed by individuals facing trial before Special Judges (Central) for offences under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and the Passports Act, 1974. The core legal question was whether a Special Court constituted under section 24 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 is barred from taking cognizance of an offence upon a police report (challan) submitted by the Federal Investigation Agency, on the ground that section 24(10) requires a "complaint" and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 defines "complaint" to exclude police reports. The Lahore High Court held that the definition of "complaint" in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 does not apply to the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, and that the term "complaint" in section 24(10) of the Ordinance is to be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, which encompasses a written police report or challan. The Court established the principle that special statutes must be interpreted harmoniously with investigative frameworks like the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, avoiding absurdities such as routing complaints through Magistrates who lack jurisdiction. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Special Court under section 24 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 can take cognizance of an offence upon a police report or challan submitted by the Federal Investigation Agency?
  • Does the definition of "complaint" provided under section 4(1)(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply to proceedings under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether the term "complaint" under section 24(10) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 bears its technical statutory definition or its ordinary dictionary meaning?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad Akhtar vs The Special Judge, Central Lahore, EtcK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 73 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
• Manzoor & Company and anothers vs Malik Muhammad Hanif1995 PLD Lahore 95 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-13Read full judgment →
• Manager (Admn.) House Building Finance Corporation, Zonal Office, Multan vs Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur and others1995 PLC 44 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-09
  constitutional petitionindustrial disputeinterim injunctionLabour Court jurisdictionreversionIndustrial Relations Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a service dispute where a driver employed by the House Building Finance Corporation was reverted to the post of Naib-Qasid following disciplinary action. He challenged his reversion by filing a petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which was subsequently referred to the Punjab Labour Court. During the proceedings, the Labour Court dismissed the petition in default but later entertained a restoration application and granted an ad interim injunction staying the reversion order. The Corporation challenged these orders before the Lahore High Court, arguing inter alia that the Labour Court lacked competence to grant interim injunctions as the Code of Civil Procedure did not fully apply. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a Labour Court, while adjudicating industrial disputes, possesses the powers of a Civil Court under section 36 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and is inherently competent to grant interim relief in aid of ultimate relief. The Court affirmed that the grant of temporary injunction is a matter of procedure rather than substantive law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Labour Court is competent to grant ad interim injunctions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Does the power to grant temporary injunction form part of procedural law or substantive law for Labour Courts?
  • Can a Labour Court revive an interim order that was operative prior to the dismissal of a petition for non-prosecution upon the filing of a restoration application?
  Read full judgment →
• Mana Etc. vs Hussain Bukhsh Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 28 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
• Mamy Beverage vs Naseem1995 PTD 91 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-10
  Sales TaxAdditional TaxWrong Head of AccountDiscretion of Adjudicating OfficerConstitutional PetitionDefaultInterpretation of Liable
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged orders passed by tax authorities demanding additional sales tax and penalty from the petitioner for late payment under section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core legal question was whether depositing sales tax within time but under a wrong head of account due to a typographical error constitutes a failure to pay tax attracting additional tax under section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Lahore High Court held that the use of the expression 'shall be liable' in section 34 vests discretion in the adjudicating officer to levy or not to levy additional tax, which requires examining the reasons and circumstances of non-payment. The Court ruled that an inadvertent clerical error in mentioning the head of account when the tax has actually been deposited in the government treasury does not amount to a deliberate default or wilful evasion. Consequently, the impugned orders were declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether depositing sales tax within the stipulated time under a wrong head of account constitutes a failure to pay tax under section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Does the expression 'shall be liable' in section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, vest discretion in the authorities to levy additional tax?
  • Is additional sales tax leviable in the absence of a deliberate failure or wilful evasion to pay the tax due?
  • Can a penalty or additional tax be recovered mechanically without considering the reasons and circumstances provided by the taxpayer?
  Read full judgment →
• Malt-79 Manufacturers vs Collector1995 PTD 345 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-10
  additional sales taxclerical errordiscretionary powertax defaultstatutory interpretationconstitutional petitionwrong head of account
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Deputy Collector, Central Excise and Sales Tax, which imposed additional tax under Section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, due to the petitioner's deposit of sales tax under an incorrect head of account. The core legal question was whether the inadvertent deposit of tax under a wrong head of account constitutes a 'failure to pay' under Section 34, and whether the imposition of additional tax is mandatory or discretionary. The Court held that the term 'liable to pay' in Section 34 vests discretion in the adjudicating officer, meaning additional tax is not an automatic consequence of late payment but requires consideration of the circumstances. The Court determined that since the petitioner had deposited the tax amount in the treasury within the prescribed time, albeit under the wrong head due to a clerical error, there was no deliberate evasion or default. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, establishing that penal provisions require an examination of intent and that 'liable' implies a discretionary power rather than a mandatory obligation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the phrase 'shall be liable to pay' in a tax statute impose a mandatory obligation or vest discretion in the adjudicating authority?
  • Does the deposit of sales tax under a wrong head of account constitute a failure to pay tax within the meaning of Section 34 of the Sales Tax Act 1990?
  • Is the imposition of additional tax under Section 34 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 contingent upon proof of wilful evasion or deliberate default?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Nayyer Hussain vs Muhammad Saeed, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 60 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ishaq and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 933 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
• Malik Imam Bux vs Mehrab1995 CLC 309 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Malik Ice Factory vs WAPDA1995 CLC 1310 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
• Malik Ibrar Hussain vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 2040 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-30Read full judgment →
• Malik Azam Jan vs Habib Bank Limited, Karachi and 3 others1995 CLC 234 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
• Malik Aslam Pervez vs Province of Punjab And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 249 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-17Read full judgment →
• Malik Asim Waqar vs Noor Elahi and 2 others1995 MLD 1846 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-18Read full judgment →
• Malik Asim Waqar vs Noor Elahi And 2 Other1995 MLD 1846 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-18Read full judgment →
• Malik Ali Bhatti vs Inspector, F.Ia., Bahawalpur1995 MLD 1086 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
• Malik Ali Bhatti vs Inspector, F.Ia. Barawalpur1995 MLD 1086 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Ahmed Mahmood vs Mrs. Fouzia Hussain and others1995 MLD 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Ahmed Mahmood vs Mrs. Fouzia Hussain And Other1995 MLD 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Ahmed Mahmood vs (Mrs.) Fouzia Hussain And OtherK.L.R, 1995 Civil Cases 62 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
• Mahnda and others vs Shamim, and others1995 CLC 908 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
• Mahmoodulhassan Abbasi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 59 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-19Read full judgment →