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.

• Ahmad Khan vs Special Court No.111 EtcK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 207 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs Special Court No. III and others1995 P Cr. L J 660 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-31Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hasan and anothers vs Punjab University and anothers1997 MLD 91 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-25Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Abdullah and others1995 CLC 1557 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-05Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bilal vs University of Engineering & Technology through its1995 CLC 592 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh vs Saeed Ahmad, Inspectr/S.H.O. Police Station Uch1997 MLD 45 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-21Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and others vs Muhammad Hayat and others1995 MLD 571 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
• Ahmad And Others vs Muhammad Hayat And Other1995 MLD 571 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
• Ahmad alias Lota vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1906 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-16Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1045 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
• Agha Nadeem, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 692 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
• Agha Jee Cotton Factory vs Hakim Trading Company Rahimyar Khan1995 CLC 302 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-04
  summary suitleave to defendcivil revisiondiscretionary jurisdictionbank guaranteenegotiable instrumentsmaterial irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged an order by the District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, which granted the petitioner leave to defend a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, subject to the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for the entire claim of Rs. 500,000. The petitioner, having denied the execution of the cheques forming the basis of the suit, contended that the condition was harsh and rendered the leave to defend illusory. The core legal question was whether the trial court exercised its discretion judicially in imposing such a stringent condition when the liability was disputed. The High Court held that while the trial court possesses discretion to impose conditions, such discretion must be exercised judiciously. Arbitrarily imposing a bank guarantee for the full amount when the defendant denies the very existence of the liability constitutes a material irregularity. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, granting the petitioner leave to defend upon furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial court, establishing that conditions must not be so onerous as to defeat the right to defend.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court impose a condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for the entire suit amount when the defendant denies the execution of the instrument?
  • Is a civil revision maintainable against an order passed under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the imposition of an onerous condition for leave to defend a summary suit constitute an arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Abdul Rehman Khan and 12 others vs Managing Director, Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur1995 CLC 1084 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-26Read full judgment →
• Afsh an Naureen vs Nadeem Abbas Shah1997 MLD 197 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-25Read full judgment →
• Administrator Thal Development vs Muhammada and others1995 MLD 794 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-29Read full judgment →
• Administrator Thal Development vs Muhammada And Other1995 MLD 794 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-29Read full judgment →
• Adam Khan And Others vs Muhammad Sadiq1995 MLD 506 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
• Abid Shah, And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 540 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-24Read full judgment →
• Abid Rashid And Others vs The State1995 MLD 1829 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
• Abid Mahmood vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 105 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Zone B, Lahore1995 PTD 262 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-07Read full judgment →
• Abid alias Abi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1558 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-18Read full judgment →
• Abid Ali and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 834 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-03Read full judgment →
• Abdus Saeed Khan and 2 vs Basharat Ali and 13 others1995 PLD Lahore 255 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18
  specific performancelis pendensbona fide purchaserpendente liteagreement to sellalienation during litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The plaintiffs sought enforcement of an agreement against the original vendors, while the appellants, who purchased the disputed land from the vendors during the pendency of the suit, challenged the decree. The core legal questions were whether the appellants, as purchasers pendente lite, could claim the status of bona fide purchasers for value without notice, and whether the suit was maintainable against them without a specific prayer for the cancellation of their sale deed. The Court held that the doctrine of lis pendens, as recognized under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, bars such a defense. The Court affirmed that the principle of lis pendens is based on public policy rather than notice, preventing litigants from alienating property to prejudice the opposite party during litigation. Consequently, the appellants, having stepped into the shoes of the original vendors, were bound by the agreement. The appeal was dismissed, subject to a minor modification regarding the payment of consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to a purchaser who had no actual notice of the pending suit?
  • Can a purchaser of property during the pendency of a specific performance suit claim the status of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice?
  • Is it necessary to specifically pray for the cancellation of a sale deed executed pendente lite in a suit for specific performance?
  • Are successors-in-interest bound by an agreement to sell executed by their predecessors under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzaq vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1800 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-16Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razza vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 642 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid Etc vs S.H.O, EtcK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 48 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim Alias Kaka vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 226 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-09Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Etc vs The State1995 KLR Criminal Cases 576 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1504 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs Banking Tribunal, Bahawalpur and others1995 MLD 1960 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs Banking Tribunal, Bahawalpur And Other1995 MLD 1960 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 120 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahad and others vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 440 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sleem vs Habib UllahK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 513 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 639 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-10
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausefracturepre-trial punishmenthurt
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner Abdul Sattar sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 337-F(ii) and (vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Harappa, District Sahiwal, after his bail was cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether bail should be withheld for offences carrying punishments not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically where injuries involved a fracture. The Lahore High Court held that since the maximum punishments for the alleged offences were two and seven years, thereby falling outside the prohibitory clause, withholding bail would amount to pre-trial punishment. The Court laid down the principle that in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause, bail ought not to be withheld as a form of punishment before the guilt of the accused is legally established, leading to the acceptance of the bail petition subject to surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be withheld in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does withholding bail for an offence carrying a maximum sentence outside the prohibitory clause amount to pre-trial punishment?
  • Is bail a matter of right in cases where the maximum punishment does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Province of the Punjab through Registrar/Deputy1995 CLC 187 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-27
  stamp dutyvaluation tableregistration of sale deedspecific performanceretrospective effectconstitutional petitionrefund of stamp duty
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking a declaration that the recovery of additional stamp duty amounting to Rs. 2,94,695 on a sale deed was illegal and without jurisdiction, along with a direction for its refund. The core legal question concerned whether the registering authorities were justified in demanding additional stamp duty based on a valuation table for a transaction originating from an agreement to sell dated back to 1981, and whether section 27-A of the Stamp Act had retrospective effect or had been duly notified. The Lahore High Court held that the demand for additional stamp duty was illegal, as section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 came into force on 14-06-1986 and lacked retrospective effect to cover a 1981 transaction, and further that no proper notification or publication of the valuation table had been proved. The court laid down the principle that the fixation of property valuation is a matter between vendor and vendee, executing authorities cannot modify a court decree by demanding additional stamp duty on under-valuation grounds, and valuation tables under section 27-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 cannot be applied retrospectively or without proper public notification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 27-A of the Stamp Act 1899 has retrospective effect to cover transactions entered into prior to its enforcement?
  • Can the Sub-Registrar refuse registration of a sale deed executed through a court decree on the ground that the property is under-valued?
  • Is a valuation table issued by the Collector under the Stamp Act 1899 effective without proper publication or notification to the public?
  • Does the fixation of property valuation rest between the vendor and vendee when a genuine price is paid through a court in a specific performance suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Province of the Punjab And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 116 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1793 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-23
  criminal appealocular evidencebenefit of doubtcorroborationinvestigating officer testimonyconcurrent sentenceshurt offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically involving injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons. The core legal questions concern the reliability of ocular testimony in the absence of independent corroboration, the evidentiary value of an investigating officer's finding of innocence regarding a co-accused, and the sufficiency of proof regarding the recovery of the weapon of offence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of the co-accused, Abdul Sattar, noting that the investigating officer's testimony declaring him innocent—uncontested by the prosecution—could not be ignored. Furthermore, the Court found the recovery of the weapon doubtful due to the lack of independent witnesses and forensic evidence. While upholding the conviction of the principal accused, Muhammad Zubair, the Court modified the sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively, emphasizing that in cases of family feuds or youth altercations, evidence against secondary participants requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction, and any doubt regarding participation must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of an investigating officer declaring an accused innocent be ignored by the court if the prosecution fails to declare the witness hostile?
  • Is independent corroboration required for the testimony of injured witnesses when the accused are alleged to have merely held the victims?
  • Does the failure to produce independent witnesses for the recovery of a weapon render the recovery doubtful?
  • Should sentences for multiple hurt offences run concurrently or consecutively when the incident arises from a single transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Saboor vs Abdul AzizK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 690 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State1995 PLD Lahore 85 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs Province of Punjab and others1995 PLD Lahore 305 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Station House Officer, Police Station Nasirabad, Lahore and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 2030 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Butt vs Muhammad Ashiq Marth, Inspector Police, Formerly SHO P.S. Gulshan Ravi, Lahore And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 418 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and 2 others vs S.H.O., Police Station Renala1995 P Cr. L J 1247 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-19
  quashment of FIRMubaraatTalaqnamaOffence of Zinamutual consent divorceirrevocability of Talaqwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed for the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following allegations of abduction. The petitioner, Mst. Parveen Akhtar, had previously been married to respondent No. 4, but the marriage was dissolved via a 'Talaqnama' executed by mutual consent (Mubaraat). Subsequently, Mst. Parveen Akhtar contracted a new Nikah with petitioner No. 3. The core legal question was whether a Talaq executed by mutual consent is immediately operative and irrevocable, thereby precluding the husband from withdrawing it. The Court held that once spouses decide to separate by mutual consent and a Talaq document is signed, it becomes final and operative for all intents and purposes, and the husband cannot withdraw it. Furthermore, the Chairman of the Union Council is bound to register such a Talaq under the relevant family laws. Given the police investigation report confirming the marriage and finding the criminal allegations baseless, the Court disposed of the petition, effectively quashing the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Talaq executed by mutual consent immediately operative and irrevocable?
  • Can a husband withdraw a Talaq once it has been signed and executed by mutual consent?
  • Is the Chairman of a Union Council bound to register a Talaq executed by mutual consent under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1610 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahman, vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Khan vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department and another1995 PLD Lahore 205 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30
  constitutional jurisdictionarbitration agreementarbitration without intervention of courtcivil court definitionexport tax contractzila councilinterim orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by a larger Bench of the Lahore High Court addresses whether a dispute raised in a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 can be referred to arbitration through the intervention of the court. The petitioner had been awarded a contract for collecting export tax by a Zila Council. Following a dispute regarding contract money adjustments, the court had previously referred the matter to arbitration by consent, leading to an award and subsequent applications before the High Court. The core legal question is whether the High Court exercising constitutional jurisdiction qualifies as a 'Court' under section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and whether it can make a reference to arbitration. The court held that while exercising constitutional jurisdiction, the High Court is not a 'civil Court' of general jurisdiction competent to try suits as defined under section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and thus cannot make a reference to arbitration. Consequently, any such purported reference by the court must be deemed a private arbitration without the intervention of the court, and applications regarding the award must be presented to a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction is distinct from ordinary civil jurisdiction, and a constitutional court cannot act as a court under the Arbitration Act, 1940 to refer matters to arbitration or pass decrees based thereon.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dispute raised in a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 can be referred to arbitration by the High Court?
  • Does the High Court exercising constitutional jurisdiction qualify as a civil court as defined under section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • What is the legal status of an arbitration reference made by a court that lacks jurisdiction to make such a reference under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Which court has the jurisdiction to entertain applications for making an arbitration award a rule of the court or setting aside an award arising from a reference improperly made in constitutional proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Khan vs Government of Punjab and others1995 PLD Lahore 143 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir and others vs Muhammad Arshad and others1995 MLD 699 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir And Others vs Muhammad Arshad And Other1995 MLD 699 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer Qamar, Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 749 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Mogees. Etc. vs M.C. Kasur And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 388 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 242 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs S.H.O., Police Station Rohilanwali District1995 P Cr. L J 1209 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-01
  habeas corpusillegal confinementpolice torturedaily diarycompensatory costsmedical examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This habeas corpus petition was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the recovery and release of two detenus allegedly held in illegal police custody. The court-appointed bailiff recovered the detenus from the lock-up of Police Station Rohilanwali. The Station House Officer (SHO) claimed they were arrested in connection with a registered theft case. However, the court observed that the arrest was not entered in the daily diary of the police station, and the statements of key witnesses were not recorded. Furthermore, a medical examination of the detenus revealed multiple blunt-force injuries, confirming severe police torture. The Lahore High Court held that the detenus were not lawfully arrested but were kept in illegal confinement. Consequently, the court ordered their immediate release, directed the removal of the court bailiff from future duties for assisting the SHO in fabricating records, and ordered the SHO to pay compensatory costs to the victims for the unlawful deprivation of their liberty.

  Questions settled

  • Can an arrest be deemed lawful if the fact of the arrest is not entered in the daily diary of the police station?
  • Whether the court can award compensatory costs against a police officer for illegal detention under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an alleged confession made before the police during illegal confinement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs Abdul Sattar EtcK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs Abdul Sattar and others1995 MLD 1241 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs Abdul Sattar And Other1995 MLD 1241 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid And 2 Others vs Abdul Ghani.1995 MLD 8 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1124 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Station House Officer, Police Station, Rohilanwali, District MuzaffargarhK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 610 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed and Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 135 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Punjab Province and others1995 CLC 408 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif And Other vs Riazul HaqK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 144 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1136 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq and 2 others vs The State1997 MLD 217 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbariqbal vs Government of Punjab EtcK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 241 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 472 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Iqbal vs Government of the Punjab, Local Government1995 PLC (C.S.) 246 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 560 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq and others vs Muhammad Ismail and others1995 CLC 1406 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hammid and Others vs The State1997 P.C.T.L.R, 1063 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Senior Vice President, National Sank of Pakistan and 31995 CLC 950 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Senior Vice President National Bank of Pakistan P.H.Q.K.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 316 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Ghaffari vs Begum Zubaida Ihsanul Haq1995 MLD 1371 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs S.H.O., Police Station, Daaira Deen Panah and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1068 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Ghulam Sarwar and others1995 P Cr. L J 1957 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and others vs Muhammad Zubair1995 PLD Lahore 329 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 779 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed And Another vs The State1995 MLD 779 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and 4 others vs Imam Bakhsh and 14 others1995 CLC 1705. · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 286 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Zubaida BibiK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 557 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 866 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Mst. Zubaida Bibi and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 936 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Fateh Sher1995 CLC 172 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Deputy Inspectorgeneral of Police, Gujrantwala1995 P Cr. L J 1514 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Shaheen vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1995 PLC (C.S.) 1154 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Rana vs D.I.G. Gujranwala RangeK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 475 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and others vs Member, Board of Revenue1995 CLC 670 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar, Etc. Versus The State Abdul Ghaffar, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 81 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar, And Another vs Judge Spec Ail Court No.1 (Ph) for Supreesion of Terroriat Activities Rawalpindi Division Rawalpindi And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 25 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 267 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan (the Chairman, Central Board of Revenue), Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others1995 PTD 1087 · Lahore High Court
  income taxspeaking orderappellate tribunalremandconstitutional petitionreasons for judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's appeals against tax assessments. The core legal question was whether the Appellate Tribunal's order constituted a valid, speaking order containing independent reasoning. The Lahore High Court held that the Tribunal failed to apply its mind and record independent reasons for its conclusions, merely summarizing previous proceedings and issuing a cryptic dismissal. The Court established the key principle that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, being the highest appellate forum on the income tax side, is legally required to write a speaking order containing reasons for accepting or rejecting an appeal, and failure to do so renders the order unlawful. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal without recording independent reasons is a valid speaking order?
  • Does failure of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to give reasons for rejecting appeals warrant setting aside its order and remanding the case?
  • Is the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal required to discuss facts and record reasons for its conclusions?
  Read full judgment →
• Aabid A. Butt vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 22 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27
  quashment of FIRSection 561-A CrPCcivil disputesimultaneous proceedingsSection 249-A CrPCdishonoured chequescriminal breach of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking quashment of an FIR registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the dispute was purely of a civil nature, civil litigation was already pending between the parties, and the criminal proceedings were lodged mala fide to harass him. The State and complainant argued that the FIR disclosed distinct criminal acts, including dishonoured cheques and unauthorized transfer of entrusted property. The High Court examined the FIR to assess if a prima facie criminal case was disclosed, holding that the simultaneous pendency of civil proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution. The Court held that criminal proceedings cannot be stifled at the outset if the FIR discloses an offence. The petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to move the trial court under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if evidence later showed purely civil liability.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a civil suit bar the initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings on the same underlying dispute?
  • Can an FIR be quashed under Section 561-A CrPC where its contents prima facie disclose commission of a criminal offence?
  • What recourse is available to an accused if criminal proceedings initially allowed to proceed later turn out to involve purely civil liability during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• (Syed) Muhammad Iqbal vs Member Board of Revenue EtcK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
• (Syed) Farman Ali vs Abid Ali Etc.K.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 89 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
• (Sh.) Muzaffar Ali Jawa vs Deputy Commissioner Faisalabad EtcK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 127 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
• (SH.) Abdul Sattar vs Commissioner of Income Tax Zone C And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 36 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) WILSON's Pharmaceutical vs Glaxo Limited and AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 132 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-28Read full judgment →