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.

• The State vs Muhammad Saleem EtcK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 372 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-13Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Saleem alias Seema and anothers1994 PLD Lahore 459 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-13Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Saleem Alias Seema And Another1994 PLD Lahore 459 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-13Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Mumtaz Alias TajaK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 354 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Afzal Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 79 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ghulam Akbar Shah and 2 others1994 MLD 1324 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-27Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul RehmanK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 355 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-24Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Rehman Wattoo and 12 others1994 MLD 1616 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-24Read full judgment →
• The Registrtar Of Companies, Pakistan Through Joint Registrar Of Companies. vs Taj Company Ltd. And 8 OtherPTCL 1994 CL. 6 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• The President of Pakistan vs Mrs. Benazir Bhutto1994 MLD 1969 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
• The Personnel Manager vs Muzaffar Ali1994 PLC 21 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-30Read full judgment →
• The Lahore Municipal Corporation vs Mian Amiruddin EtcK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 536 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-28Read full judgment →
• The Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi vs The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Gulshan Ravi, Lahore And Another1994 PLC 321 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-22Read full judgment →
• The Crescent Textile Mills Limited, Faisalabad vs Abdul Aziz And 2 Others1994 PLC 574 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-30Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faisalabad vs New China Shoe Co1994 PTD 730 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Hanif EtcK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 479 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-08Read full judgment →
• The Bank of Punjab vs Administrator General, Central Zakat1994 PLD Lahore 207 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21
  Zakat and Ushr OrdinanceSahib-e-Nisabstatutory corporationcompulsory deduction of Zakatconstitutional petitiondouble deduction of ZakatBank of Punjab
  Summary & questions settled

  The Bank of Punjab, a statutory corporation established under the Bank of Punjab Act, 1989, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking to restrain respondents from treating the petitioner-Bank as Sahib-e-Nisab and from deducting Zakat on its investments in National Investment Trust (N.I.T.) Units under the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980. The core legal question was whether a statutory corporation whose majority equity is held by a Provincial Government falls within the purview of the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980, and is liable to compulsory Zakat deduction on its investments, and whether double deduction of Zakat on the same funds is permissible under Shariah and the Ordinance. The Lahore High Court held that the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980, applies only to Muslim citizens and companies/associations where the majority of shares are owned by such citizens, and that Zakat cannot be levied twice on the same assets. The Court ruled that the petitioner-Bank is not liable to compulsory Zakat deduction on its N.I.T. Units investment, accepted the petition, and directed the refund of deducted amounts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statutory corporation with majority equity owned by a Provincial Government falls within the definition of Sahib-e-Nisab under the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980?
  • Does the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980 apply to corporate entities whose majority shares are not owned by Muslim citizens?
  • Is it permissible under Shariah and the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980 to deduct Zakat twice on the same funds or investments?
  • Are investments made in N.I.T. Units out of depositor funds subject to compulsory Zakat deduction when Zakat has already been deducted from the underlying deposits?
  Read full judgment →
• The Bank of Punjab vs Administrator General, Central ZakatK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 86 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Bank of Punjab through Authorised Representative vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Lahore and 7 others1994 MLD 2165 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
• Thal Development Authority Through Administrator, Thal Bhakkar vs Khushi Muhammad(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 67) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Thal Development Authority through Administrator, Thal Bhakkar vs Khushi Muhammad and anothers1994 PLD Lahore 108 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
• Thal Development Authority Through Administrator, Thal Bhakkar vs Khushi Muhammad And Another1994 PLD Lahore 108 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
• Telephone Soap vs M/s. Lever Brother1994 CLC 2135 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-04
  trademark infringementpassing offtemporary injunctiondeceptive similaritybusiness reputationintellectual property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a trial court order granting a temporary injunction in a suit for permanent injunction regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The respondent, manufacturer of 'Lifebuoy' soap, alleged that the appellant's 'Telephone Soap' utilized deceptively similar packaging and color schemes, causing confusion among consumers and damaging the respondent's commercial reputation. The appellant contended that the respondent was not the registered proprietor of the 'Lifebuoy' trademark and that the inclusion of a telephone image on their packaging sufficiently distinguished their product. The Lahore High Court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that the overall get-up and color scheme of the appellant's packaging created a prima facie case of passing off, regardless of minor differences. The Court held that an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss to the respondent's business reputation, which could not be measured in monetary terms. Furthermore, the Court clarified that observations made during interlocutory proceedings are tentative and do not constitute a final determination of the suit's merits, which must be decided upon full evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of a trademark by the defendant entitle them to use it if it constitutes an infringement of another's trademark?
  • Can a party maintain a suit for trademark infringement if they are an authorized user rather than the registered proprietor?
  • Do observations made by a trial court during the disposal of a temporary injunction application constitute a final expression of opinion on the merits of the suit?
  • Is the overall get-up and color scheme of packaging a sufficient basis to establish a prima facie case of passing off?
  Read full judgment →
• Technology and Resource Development (Pvt.) Ltd. vs E.M.E.1994 MLD 612 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-15Read full judgment →
• Tawakal Khan vs Dana Akhtar And Other1994 CLC 182 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-14Read full judgment →
• Tauqir Ahmad Khan, And Other vs Government of Pakistan through the Secretary Works And Other(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 92) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tauqir Ahmad Khan and 6 others vs Government of Pakistan through the Secretary, Works, Central Secretariat, Islamabad and 6 others1994 MLD 1866 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-21
  land acquisitionRule 7 Punjab Land Acquisition Ruleslapse of acquisition proceedingsSection 4 notificationSection 17 urgency clausetime limitationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of multiple constitutional petitions challenging land acquisition notifications and proceedings concerning land in Dhana Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Lahore, initiated for constructing residential accommodation for Central Government Employees. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was published in October 1979, but subsequent notifications under Section 17(4) and Sections 6 and 7 were issued years later in 1983 and 1985 respectively. The petitioners contended that the proceedings lapsed as no notification under Section 5 or Section 17 was issued within the statutory timeframe. The High Court accepted this contention, relying on Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983 and governmental instructions dated 15 June 1968. The Court held that if no notification under Section 5 or Section 17 is issued within one year, or at most one year and 60 days (with Board of Revenue extension), the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed. Consequently, all subsequent notifications under Sections 17, 6, and 7 were declared void and without jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • What is the effect on land acquisition proceedings if a notification under Section 5 or Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is not issued within one year or the maximum extended period of one year and 60 days from the publication of the Section 4 notification?
  • Can a valid declaration or notification under Section 17, Section 6, or Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be issued on the basis of a Section 4 notification that has lapsed under Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983?
  • Whether subsequent land acquisition notifications issued beyond the statutory timeframe prescribed by the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983 are void and without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Tasleem Ullah vs Khalida Khanum and others1994 PLD Lahore 423 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-12
  ejectment petitionpersonal usecomposite buildingresidential buildingnon-residential buildingsecond appealconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal (treated as a Constitutional petition) arose from an ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlady against the appellant-tenant on grounds of default, damage, nuisance, and personal use. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority both ordered ejectment on the ground of personal use. The appellant contended that the premises were let out for commercial purposes, rendering the ejectment petition for residential personal use incompetent. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that a second appeal was incompetent under Section 15(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 as the premises were residential. The High Court held that a composite building used for residential, office, and warehouse purposes must be treated as a residential building under the Ordinance. Furthermore, converting a residential building to a non-residential one without the written permission of the Rent Controller violates Section 11 of the Ordinance and is against public policy. Consequently, the second appeal was incompetent, and treating the matter as a Constitutional petition, the Court dismissed it on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a composite building used for both residential and commercial purposes should be treated as a residential or non-residential building under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Can a tenant legally convert a residential building into a non-residential building without the written permission of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Is a second appeal competent under Section 15(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 if the premises in dispute are determined to be residential?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 337 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-08Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 137 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-05Read full judgment →
• Tariq Masih vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 10 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-05Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood, Etc vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 142) · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood And 3 Others vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf and Secretary to1994 CLC 547 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
• Tario Mahmood Bajwa vs Muhammad Afzal Sahi And Other1994 CLC 1366 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-01
  election petitionverification of pleadingsmandatory provisionsdismissal of petitionrepresentation of the people
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an election petition challenging the election of respondent No. 1 to the Provincial Assembly from Constituency No. PP-54 (Faisalabad-XII) during the general elections held on 9th October, 1993. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 for the dismissal of the petition due to non-compliance with section 55(3) regarding proper verification in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, alongside a failure to append required affidavits. The core legal question was whether the provisions requiring signing and verification of an election petition are mandatory or directory, and whether non-compliance entails the mandatory dismissal of the petition. The Election Tribunal held that the provisions of section 55 are mandatory due to the penal consequence of dismissal expressly provided under section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The Tribunal laid down the principle that statutory provisions coupled with an express consequence of nullity or dismissal upon default are mandatory, and a defective verification that fails to specify paragraphs on personal knowledge versus information, lacks an oath or affirmation, and misses required affidavits necessitates the dismissal of the election petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions relating to the signing and verification of an election petition under section 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 are mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure to verify an election petition in accordance with Order VI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 entail the dismissal of the petition under section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Can a defective verification in an election petition be cured by subsequent amendment despite express statutory penal provisions for non-compliance?
  Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1994 CLC 1667 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-20Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain and others vs Muhammad Afzal and others1994 MLD 394 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-16Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain and anothers vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 43 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain And Another vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 43 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
• Talehmand and others vs Mst. Aisha Bibi1994 PLD Lahore 399 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-21Read full judgment →
• Talehmand And Other vs Mst. Aisha Bibi1994 PLD Lahore 399 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-21Read full judgment →
• Talat Iftikhar And 6 Others vs Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Lahore1994 CLC 2105 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-18Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Town Committee, Fatehj~NG Through Chairman And 31994 CLC 2214 · Lahore High Court
  constitutional petitionlocus standiadministrative lawappointmentrule relaxationultra viresmunicipal committeedictated exercise of power
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the appointment of an Octroi Inspector in the Town Committee, Fatehjang, made under the directive of the Minister for Local Government. The core legal questions concerned the validity of an appointment dictated by a Minister, the requirement of mandatory experience under the West Pakistan Municipal Committees Octroi Rules, 1964, and the legality of retroactive rule relaxation. The Court held the appointment void, ruling that statutory power must be exercised by the designated authority without external dictation. The appointment violated the mandatory five-year experience requirement, and the subsequent government order relaxing this rule was invalid because it was retroactive, lacked stated reasons, and the relevant rule did not authorize relaxation for individual cases. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the petitioner's locus standi, noting that a candidate eligible for a post has a sufficient interest to challenge an illegal appointment process. The principle established is that administrative discretion cannot be exercised under the dictates of superiors, and rule relaxation cannot retroactively validate an appointment that was illegal at its inception.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Minister for Local Government lawfully direct the appointment of a specific individual to a municipal post?
  • Does the power to relax rules under the West Pakistan Municipal Committees Octroi Rules, 1964, extend to individual cases?
  • Can a government order retroactively validate an appointment that was illegal at the time it was made?
  • Does a candidate eligible for a post have the locus standi to challenge the illegal appointment of another person to that post?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs M.B.R.1994 CLC 906 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-30
  Lambardar appointmentBoard of Revenueconstitutional petitionrevenue lawBaradariadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, which appointed the respondent as the Lambardar of a specific Chak, overturning the previous appointment of the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the appointment of a Lambardar should be based on caste or sub-caste affiliations, or whether the community as a whole should be the determining factor. The High Court upheld the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue, dismissing the petition in limine. The Court held that the Collector’s initial approach, which prioritized the petitioner based on his sub-caste (Baradari) and discriminated against the respondent for belonging to a different sub-caste, was legally flawed. The Court affirmed the principle that when appointing a Lambardar, the relevant consideration is the community as a whole, not the candidate's specific caste or sub-caste. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Board of Revenue, as the apex revenue authority, acted within its jurisdiction in correcting the Collector's erroneous legal approach, and the respondent was rightly preferred due to superior education, greater landed property, and social influence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the appointment of a Lambardar legally permissible based primarily on the candidate's caste or sub-caste?
  • Does the Board of Revenue have the authority to correct a Collector's decision regarding the appointment of a Lambardar?
  • Should the appointment of a Lambardar be determined by the candidate's caste or by the community as a whole?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Munir1994 MLD 1943 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
• Taj Muahmmad vs Rana Zafar Iqbal And Other1994 CLC 167 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
• Taj Company Ltd. vs Collector of Customs And Other1994 CLC 1763 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Tahir Saeed Qureshi vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1994 CLC 1930 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-12Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mehmood vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 445 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mahmood Rana vs The Tourism Development Corporation of Punjab, Lahore And 2 Other1994 CLC 2004 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-01
  master and servanttemporary injunctionreinstatementservice rulescivil revisionstatus quotermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from an appellate court decision vacating a temporary injunction that had been granted to the petitioner, a Senior Tourism Officer whose services were terminated by the Tourism Development Corporation of Punjab (TDCP). The core legal question was whether a temporary injunction for reinstatement could be granted in service matters governed by the master and servant principle, and whether the courts could restore status quo ante prior to the institution of the suit. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision in limine, holding that TDCP is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance whose service rules are non-statutory, thereby attracting the law of master and servant where the remedy for wrongful termination lies in damages rather than reinstatement. Furthermore, the court held that status quo under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be maintained as of the date of the suit's institution, and interim mandatory injunctions disturbing service status should not be issued lightly without compelling circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of the Tourism Development Corporation of Punjab?
  • Can a court grant a temporary injunction for reinstatement in service matters governed by non-statutory rules?
  • Whether status quo under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be extended to a point in time prior to the institution of the suit?
  • Is a terminated employee of a non-statutory corporate body entitled to claim reinstatement or are their remedies restricted to damages?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Lodhi alias Shaheen vs The State1994 MLD 2053 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
• Tahir Iftikhar Ahmad vs Speaker, Provincial Assembly And Others1994 PLC (C.S) 892 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
• Tahir Hussain Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 99 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Zafar Ali Shah vs Federal Government of Pakistan And Another1994 CLC 5 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-24
  constitutional petitionacting presidentoath of officechairman of senatevacancy in office of presidentinterpretation of constitution
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the authority of the Chairman of Senate to act as President of Pakistan and perform presidential functions following the resignation of the President, without taking a fresh oath of office as prescribed for the President in the Third Schedule of the Constitution. The core legal question addressed was whether the Chairman of Senate, upon stepping in to act as President under Article 49 of the Constitution, is constitutionally required to make a fresh oath of office as President before entering upon that office. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Acting President exercises all the powers of the elected President whose vacancy he fills, and that the various provisions of the Constitution must be harmonized to avoid conflict. The key principle laid down is that an Acting President assumes the full powers and functions incidental to the office of the President under the constitutional framework.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chairman of Senate acting as President under Article 49 of the Constitution of Pakistan is required to take a fresh oath of office as President?
  • Can an Acting President exercise all the powers and perform the functions of the elected President?
  • Does a person entering upon the office of President under Article 49 need to make the oath set out in the Third Schedule of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Usman Ali Shah And Others vs Muhammad Idrees And Other1994 CLC 1013 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Qalabihussain vs Administratorgeneral, Auqaf and others1994 PLD Lahore 241 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Qaiser Hussain vs L.M.C.1994 CLC 1471 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Nazir Hussain vs Fazal Rao1994 CLC 641 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Nadeem Hassan Kazmi vs Disciplinary Committee1994 MLD 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Raza vs General Manager, WAPDA and others1994 MLD 1647 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-16
  constitutional petitionpublic appointmentselection criteriawritten test and interviewinterview marks ratioWAPDA
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the appointment of Accounts Assistants in the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) on the grounds that the Selection Committee unlawfully altered the recruitment criteria and ratio of marks for the written test and interview prescribed by the Authority. The core legal questions involved whether a selection committee or subordinate officer can vary the recruitment policy and ratio of marks laid down by WAPDA, and whether reserving an excessively high percentage of marks for interview is discriminatory and arbitrary. The Lahore High Court held that neither the Selection Committee nor the Manager (Finance) had the power to alter the ratio of marks established by the Authority under the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, and that reserving 50% of the marks for an interview lacking recorded reasons is arbitrary and unfair. The court laid down the principle that recruitment authorities must strictly adhere to prescribed policy guidelines and that disproportionately high interview marks, which invite subjective assessment and misuse of power, are unsustainable under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Selection Committee or Manager alter the ratio of marks for a written test and interview prescribed in recruitment policy guidelines issued by WAPDA?
  • Whether reserving 50% of total selection marks for an interview is discriminatory and unfair?
  • Does the Water and Power Development Authority Act empower subordinate bodies to vary the terms and procedure of appointment prescribed by the Authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Nazir Shah vs Yasin1994 MLD 819 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Asadurrehman vs The University of Punjab through ViceChancellor and 2 others1994 MLD 714 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Mahmood Ul Hassan Zaidi And Others vs Ch. Muhammad Ashraf1994 CLC 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Hameed Ali Shah vs Shaista Sultana And 2 Other1994 CLC 81 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Shah vs Government of Pakistan Through Ministry Of Defence1994 CLC 369 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-16
  constitutional petitioncommercializationpromissory estoppelold grantcantonment landretrospective applicationequal treatmentadministrative delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition was filed against an order of the Ministry of Defence seeking to resume old grant land and impose significantly enhanced commercialization rates on the sub-division of the petitioner's property. The petitioner submitted an application in 1984 for commercialization, which was approved by competent military and departmental authorities at the prevailing rate of Rs. 871.20 per square metre. The petitioner accordingly deposited the initial premium. However, formal issuance of the order was delayed due to an internal administrative dispute between government departments until 1991, when the ministry issued a new order applying enhanced 1989 policy rates of Rs. 20,797.10 per square metre. The High Court allowed the petition and declared the impugned order illegal. The Court held that commercialization charges must be governed by the rate prevalent at the time of application and approval. Furthermore, under the principle of promissory estoppel and Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, public authorities cannot penalize an applicant for administrative delays or treat them discriminatorily after inducing compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether commercialization rates for cantonment land can be enhanced retrospectively where approval was granted and premium was paid under earlier prevalent rates?
  • Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies to executive and statutory authorities acting within their legal competence?
  • Whether an applicant can be subjected to revised land conversion rates due to internal administrative delay by state functionaries?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Raza Asad Abidi vs Sardar Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari, President of Pakistan1994 MLD 1852 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Raza Asad Abidi vs Sardar Farooq Ahmed Khan LeghariK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 237 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Aftab Mehdi vs Secretary General, Establishment1994 CLC 809 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Abid Hussain vs Raja Khalid Aziz And Other1994 CLC 1175 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Aziz Nasir Haqqani Alias Pir Aziz Ullah Haqqani vs Returning Officer for Presidential Election (Chief Election Commissioner), Islamabad1994 CLC 648 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-10
  presidential electionnomination papersconstitutional jurisdictionsecrecy of ballotIslamic injunctionselection processjusticiability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the rejection of his nomination papers for the Presidential election by the Returning Officer, arguing that the requirement for a candidate to be proposed and seconded by a voter was unconstitutional, violative of the secrecy of the ballot, and contrary to Islamic injunctions. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine. The Court held that the requirements for nomination are explicitly prescribed by Article 41 and the Second Schedule of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and therefore, the Returning Officer acted lawfully in rejecting the nomination for non-compliance. The Court clarified that the nomination process is distinct from the actual balloting, thus not violating the secrecy of the ballot. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it lacks jurisdiction to strike down constitutional provisions as un-Islamic, noting that such remedial action lies with the Parliament. Finally, the Court ruled that the petition was not maintainable due to the constitutional bar under Article 41(6), which precludes courts from questioning the election process, as filing nomination papers constitutes an integral step in the election.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court declare a provision of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 void on the ground that it is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam?
  • Does the requirement for a presidential candidate to have their nomination paper proposed and seconded by a voter violate the secrecy of the ballot?
  • Is the filing and scrutiny of nomination papers considered a step in the election process subject to the bar on judicial intervention under Article 41(6) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the requirement for a presidential candidate to be proposed and seconded by a voter violate the constitutional rights of the people to elect a President?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan And Others vs Province of Punjab1994 CLC 473 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
• Sultan and others vs Muhammad and others1994 MLD 553 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-13Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmed vs M.B.R, Etc(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 130) · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad Etc vs Mehr Din Etc(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 132) · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-09Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad and others vs Mehr Din and others1994 MLD 1671 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-16Read full judgment →
• Suleman and others vs Kala1994 MLD 747 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• Sufi Abdul Majid vs Nadir Ali1994 MLD 738 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
• Subedar Abid Hussain vs TM Muhammad and others1994 MLD 1869 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-07Read full judgment →
• Subah Sadiq and others vs The State1994 MLD 1717 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-26Read full judgment →
• State vs Ghulam Mustafa and others1994 MLD 1872 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• Soni vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 192 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-07Read full judgment →
• Siraj Begum vs D.C.1994 MLD 1864 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
• Sikander Hayat vs The State1994 MLD 584 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-05Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Hayat vs Omar Hayat and another1994 MLD 1248 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
• Siddique Ahmed vs Govt. of PunjabK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 417 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
• Siddique Ahmad vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 324 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-31
  accidental firingculpable negligencemurder convictioncriminal appealfirearm injurymens reaSection 304-A PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his friend. The core legal question was whether the act of firing a gun, which resulted in the deceased's death, constituted murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or a lesser offence, considering the absence of motive and the appellant's claim of accidental firing. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the requisite intent or knowledge for murder under Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court set aside the murder conviction and instead convicted the appellant under Section 304-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for causing death by a rash or negligent act. The key principle laid down is that where a death is caused by the discharge of a firearm without the specific intent required for murder, and the accused acted with gross negligence by failing to verify if the weapon was loaded before pointing it at the deceased, the offence constitutes culpable negligence rather than murder.

  Questions settled

  • Does the act of firing a gun at another person without verifying if it is loaded constitute murder or culpable negligence?
  • Can an appellate court convict an accused under Section 304-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, when the trial court convicted them under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the absence of motive a relevant factor in determining whether a killing amounts to murder under Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Darul Uloom Usmania1994 MLD 1552 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-23Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali and others vs Bashir Ahmad and others1994 MLD 2236 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-05Read full judgment →
• Shazia Abbas vs Director of Education, (Schools) And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 27 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-01Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Jamil and others vs Government of Pakistan and others1994 MLD 1840 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali| vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 98 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-18Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Province of Punjab And Other1994 CLC 59 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Cinninal Cases 400 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali And Others vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf And Other1994 CLC 2228 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-19Read full judgment →
• Shamsher Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 223 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-30Read full judgment →
• Shamim Akhtar vs Sh. Abdul Ghafoor1994 MLD 1965 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-01Read full judgment →
• Shameer And Others vs Member, Colonies Board And Other1994 CLC 904 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05
  Grow More Food Schemeallotment of landproprietary rightslocus standisuppression of material factsBoard of Revenuewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan challenges an order passed by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, which cancelled the allotment of land previously granted to the petitioners under the Grow More Food Scheme. The petitioners had been allotted alternate land after their original allotment was resumed, and they subsequently obtained proprietary rights, paid the full price, and executed a registered conveyance deed. Third-party applicants sought to intervene, claiming rights as lessees, but the Court found they had suppressed material facts regarding previous litigation and failed to challenge earlier adverse orders, thereby lacking locus standi. The Court determined that the Board of Revenue's order was based on an erroneous factual assumption that the land fell within a prohibited municipal zone. Holding that the cancellation was unjustified and the land was not within the prohibited area, the Court accepted the petition, declared the impugned order to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and affirmed the validity of the petitioners' proprietary rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of material facts regarding previous litigation disqualify an applicant from seeking relief in writ proceedings?
  • Can an order of the Board of Revenue be quashed if it is based on an erroneous assumption of fact regarding the location of the land?
  • Do third-party applicants have locus standi to challenge the grant of proprietary rights if they have failed to challenge previous adverse orders concerning the same land?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamas Textile Mills And Other vs Muhammad Sharif Zahid And Others1994 PLC 594 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
• Shama (Shamsuddin) vs Muhammad Hussain And 9 Other1994 CLC 391 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
• Shalimar Filter Industries through Tariq Javed vs Syed Jarar Mustafa1994 MLD 576 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-20Read full judgment →
• Shakila Bibi vs Muhammad Farooq And Another1994 CLC 230 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-29
  Khuladissolution of marriagerestitution of conjugal rightsirretrievable breakdownfamily lawmatrimonial disputehateful union
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition against the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the petitioner's suit for dissolution of marriage and decreed the respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in refusing to grant Khula despite evidence of an irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that where circumstances indicate it is impossible for spouses to live together within the limits prescribed by Allah Almighty, they should be separated rather than forced into a hateful union. The court established that a wife is not required to justify the specific reasons for her hatred toward her husband; it is sufficient to demonstrate a fixed aversion and the absence of any possibility of reconciliation. Given the evidence of long-term separation and the wife's categorical refusal to return to the husband's society, the court decreed the suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula, setting aside the contrary findings of the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Is a wife required to justify the specific reasons for her hatred toward her husband to obtain a decree of Khula?
  • Should a court grant Khula when evidence suggests that the parties cannot live together within the limits prescribed by Allah Almighty?
  • Does the existence of a fixed aversion and the absence of any possibility of reconciliation constitute sufficient grounds for the dissolution of marriage?
  Read full judgment →