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.

• Sher Muhammad And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1133 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1605 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2022 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-17Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Qadeer Ahmad vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal1991 PLC 42 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Munir vs L.D.A.K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 122 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-30Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Aslam and anothers vs The State and 2 others1991 MLD 1973 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-02
  joint trialsame transactionmisjoinder of chargescriminal procedureterritorial jurisdictionQadianiSection 298-C PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the joint trial of several petitioners accused of offences under Section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners, members of the Qadiani faith, were charged with posing as Muslims. The trial court and the revisional court had upheld their joint trial under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the accused, having committed distinct acts at different times and places, could be tried jointly under the doctrine of 'same transaction.' The High Court held that the joint trial was legally unsustainable. It reasoned that the mere membership of a religious group does not establish a community of purpose or continuity of action sufficient to constitute a 'same transaction.' The Court emphasized that for a joint trial to be valid, there must be a nexus of purpose, cause and effect, or continuous action. Since the acts were distinct and occurred in different jurisdictions, the joint trial violated the general rule of separate trials under Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an illegality not curable under Section 537.

  Questions settled

  • Can accused persons be tried jointly under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely based on their membership in the same religious group?
  • Does the concept of 'same transaction' allow for a joint trial when offences are committed at different times and places without a clear community of purpose?
  • Is a misjoinder of charges in a joint trial a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confer territorial jurisdiction upon a court to try offences committed outside its jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Mudassar Ahmad vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others1991 MLD 2121 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-19
  ad-hoc appointmentservice terminationdepartmental authorityjudicial reviewservice tribunal jurisdictiondiscriminatory treatmentconstitutional petitioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, ad-hoc employees in various government departments appointed via the Placement Bureau, challenged the termination of their services. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to review these terminations, or whether the matter fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212. The Court held that the termination orders were not passed by a "departmental authority" as defined under the Service Tribunals Act 1973, but were instead arbitrary implementations of a Cabinet policy without independent application of mind. Consequently, the bar of Article 212 was inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court found the terminations discriminatory, as similarly situated employees in lower grades were retained, violating the principles of equal protection and due process under Articles 25 and 4 of the Constitution. The impugned orders were set aside as lacking lawful authority. The judgment establishes that executive policy decisions cannot override the vested rights of civil servants when orders are passed without independent departmental consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to review termination orders passed pursuant to a Cabinet policy decision?
  • Can an order passed by a departmental authority solely to implement a Cabinet decision be considered an order of a 'departmental authority' under the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  • Does the termination of ad-hoc employees while retaining others in similar circumstances violate the right to equal protection under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Is the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution absolute in cases involving civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Mudassar Ahmad vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others (Copy)1991 PLC (C.S.) 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-19
  ad-hoc appointmenttermination of servicejurisdiction of High CourtService Tribunaldepartmental authoritycabinet policy decisionvested rightsdiscriminatory treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a number of writ petitions challenging the termination of services of ad-hoc appointees holding posts in BPS-9 to BPS-14, who were originally appointed on the recommendations of the Prime Minister's Secretariat/Placement Bureau. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and whether en-bloc termination of services pursuant to a Cabinet policy decision without independent application of mind by the departmental authority and without affording an opportunity of hearing is lawful. The Lahore High Court held that since the termination orders were passed mechanically pursuant to a Cabinet directive rather than independently by a competent departmental authority, appeals would not be competent before the Service Tribunal, thereby rendering the bar under Article 212 inapplicable. The Court further held that the impugned orders violated vested rights, breached the principles of natural justice, and constituted unconstitutional discrimination under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution. The petitions were consequently allowed and the termination orders set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution apply when termination orders are passed pursuant to a cabinet policy decision rather than by a departmental authority?
  • Can the services of ad-hoc employees who have acquired vested rights be terminated en bloc without an independent application of mind by the competent authority?
  • Whether the termination of one set of ad-hoc employees while retaining similarly situated employees appointed in lower grades constitutes unconstitutional discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Are policy decisions of the Executive open to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution when they adversely affect the vested rights of citizens?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hayat vs The Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and another1991 MLD 1931 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1741 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs The State1991 MLD 516 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 299 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-08Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Kalsoom Akhtar and another1991 PLD Lahore 247 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27
  transfer of criminal casesubordination of magistratesMuslim Family Laws OrdinancebigamySessions Judge jurisdictionDistrict Magistrate powerscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of proceedings initiated under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, against the petitioner for contracting a second marriage. The petitioner sought the transfer of the case from the Court of the Assistant Commissioner, Okara. Previously, the Sessions Judge, Okara, had transferred the case to the District Magistrate, Okara, who refused to accept the transfer, claiming he was not a court of original jurisdiction and not subordinate to the Sessions Judge. The Court examined whether a District Magistrate is a subordinate magistrate for the purposes of case transfer under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that the District Magistrate, being a Magistrate of the 1st Class, falls under the category of magistrates subordinate to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of Section 528(1-C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Sessions Judge possesses the authority to transfer cases to the District Magistrate for inquiry or trial. The Court declared the District Magistrate's refusal to accept the transfer illegal and improper, subsequently transferring the case to the Senior Civil Judge, Okara.

  Questions settled

  • Is a District Magistrate considered subordinate to the Sessions Judge for the purpose of transferring cases under Section 528(1-C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a District Magistrate have the authority to refuse a case transferred to him by a Sessions Judge on the grounds that he is not a court of original jurisdiction?
  • Are offences under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 triable in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Akhtar And Others1991 P Cr. L J 1004 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Mehr vs Sardar Sher Afgan A.D.C. (G) and others1991 CLC 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
• Sharif Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1761 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05
  plea of guiltshow cause noticepure foodcriminal revisionprocedural illegalityretrial
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition against his conviction and sentence under section 23(1)(a) of the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, after pleading guilty to a charge of selling Maida containing excess moisture. The core legal question was whether the trial court was legally bound to provide an opportunity to the accused to show cause against conviction after recording a plea of guilt under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of Section 243, Cr.P.C. are mandatory, requiring the trial court to ask the accused to show cause why he should not be convicted upon his admission. Failure to do so constitutes an incurable illegality vitiating the conviction. The court laid down the principle that recording a plea of guilt without affording a subsequent opportunity to show cause against conviction is a fatal procedural defect, setting aside the conviction and remanding the matter for retrial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court required to ask an accused to show cause why he should not be convicted after recording his plea of guilt under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to provide an opportunity to show cause upon a plea of guilt amount to a curable irregularity or an incurable illegality under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharif Alam vs Abdul Shakoor1991 CLC 1750 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-30Read full judgment →
• Sharafat Hussain vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 2191 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17Read full judgment →
• Shan Elahi vs Border Area Allotment Committee and others1991 CLC 1391 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
• Shamsher Ali vs Sardar Khan.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 280 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-25Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Ahmad vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
• Shamas Rashid vs Ghulam Rasool and others1991 CLC 1189 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Humayun vs Muhammad Akram1991 MLD 530 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-25Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Ahmad Etc vs S.M.Latif EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 245 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-15Read full judgment →
• Shahu vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 944 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
• Shahmand And 6 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 833 · Lahore High Court · -
  triple murderunlawful assemblyvicarious liabilitycommon objectretrialremandmandatory finestatutory compensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arose from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, which convicted seven appellants under Sections 148, 302, and 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for a triple murder, while acquitting several co-accused. The High Court, upon reviewing the trial court's judgment, found it to be highly confusing, ambiguous, and violative of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Specifically, despite finding that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly with a common object, the trial court failed to determine and sentence the principal accused under Section 302/149 on multiple counts, failed to impose mandatory fines under Section 302, and failed to award mandatory compensation under Section 544-A. The High Court held that where multiple accused are tried for multiple murders, the trial court must determine individual criminal liability and legal sentences for each murder. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and remanded the case for retrial from the stage of final arguments.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court obliged to determine the specific criminal liability and sentence of each accused for each individual murder when multiple accused are tried for multiple murders under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an appellate court order the retrial of only specific accused from a particular stage of the proceedings while maintaining the acquittal of other co-accused?
  • Does the term 'retrial' under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 necessarily require a trial de novo?
  • Is a judgment that fails to impose a mandatory fine under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 or award compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Riaz vs Deputy Commissioner and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 515 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
• Shahid Javid vs Sabba Jabbeen and others1991 CLC 805 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-09
  dissolution of marriagekhulazar-e-khulafamily courtconstitutional petitionmatrimonial discord
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition assailing the appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge, which had reversed the Family Court's decision and decreed the respondent wife's suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula upon payment of Rs. 5,000 as zar-e-khula. The core legal question was whether dissolution of marriage on the ground of khula can be denied solely because the parties lived together for only a short duration and whether failure to prove specific factual grounds precludes a wife from seeking khula. The Lahore High Court held that the right to dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula is an independent right, no fixed time limit is required for the development of marital discord or hatred, and a wife need not establish extensive factual grounds if the court is satisfied that forcing her to remain in the union would result in a hateful marriage. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right to dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula is dependent on proving other specific factual grounds?
  • Can a minimum time period of cohabitation be prescribed as a pre-condition for the development of hatred necessary for khula?
  • Whether a wife seeking dissolution of marriage through khula must produce extensive evidence of facts and circumstances to prove the extent of her hatred?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1742 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz vs The State1991 MLD 1170 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2391 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Shafiq vs Mst.Khurshid BegumK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 541 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
• Shafiq Ur Rehman vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 1223 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Shaffaqat Ali Mullah Alias Juj vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2395 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-31Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs The State1991 MLD 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
• SH.Muhammad Saeed vs Muhammad Sultan Nizami Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 274 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-13Read full judgment →
• Sh. Sadiq Ali Gohar vs Additional District Judge and others1991 MLD 1599 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Sh. Mumtaz Ali alias Mumtaz Alam vs Government of the Punjab1991 PLC (C.S.) 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-18
  constitution petitiondate of birth correctionservice recordex parte decreesuperannuationjudicial officerbinding effect of decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution petition was filed by a confirmed Additional District and Sessions Judge seeking a direction against the Government of Punjab to correct his date of birth in his service record from 01-01-1930 to 16-10-1931 pursuant to an ex parte decree obtained against the University of the Punjab, and to restrain his impending superannuation retirement. The core legal questions pertained to whether an ex parte civil court decree obtained against an educational institution is binding on the Government when the Government was not a party to the suit, and whether service records can be altered near superannuation contrary to established government instructions. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the decree was not binding on the Government as it was not impleaded. The Court noted that government instructions mandated seeking service record corrections within two years of entering service, whereas the petitioner joined service decades prior. The Court deprecated the trend of judicial officers seeking ex parte age corrections at the fag-end of their careers and rejected allegations of discrimination due to lack of substantiating record.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil court decree binding upon the Government if the Government was not impleaded as a party to the suit?
  • Can a civil servant seek correction of their date of birth in service records beyond the time period prescribed by relevant government instructions?
  • Whether an ex parte decree for age correction obtained against an educational institution creates an enforceable right to alter service records against an employer who was not a party?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Siddiq vs Mst. Naseem Akhtar1991 MLD 1424 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• SH. Muhammad Siddiq vs (Mst). Naseem AkhtarK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 661 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Sadiq and anothers vs La. Khan1991 MLD 1205 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• SH. Muhammad Sadiq & Another vs I. A. KhanK.L.R. 1991, Civil Cases 543 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Hanif vs Muhammad Nisar and 2 others1991 CLC 99 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-17
  ejectment petitionlandlord and tenantestoppeltitle disputeevacuee propertysettlement authoritiesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an appellate order dismissing an ejectment petition filed under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The petitioner sought the respondent's eviction based on default and personal use, claiming ownership through a predecessor. The respondent denied the landlord-tenant relationship, citing an order by the Settlement Authorities declaring the petitioner's title to the property bogus. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could maintain an ejectment petition despite the cancellation of his title and whether the tenant was estopped from denying the landlord's title. The Court held that the petitioner, having lost his title due to the Settlement Authorities' order, could not maintain the ejectment proceedings. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the principle of estoppel does not apply when a landlord's title has ceased to exist after the tenancy began. Consequently, the appellate court's dismissal of the ejectment petition was upheld, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition should his title be restored by a competent civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord maintain an ejectment petition under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 if their title to the property has been declared bogus by Settlement Authorities?
  • Does the principle of estoppel prevent a tenant from denying a landlord's title if the landlord's ownership ceased after the commencement of the tenancy?
  • Is a finding by an appellate court regarding the lack of landlord title a permanent bar to future ejectment proceedings if the landlord later establishes title in a civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Ghulam Ali vs Azhar Ali1991 MLD 1421 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Sh. Barkat Ali vs Ch. Muhammad Latif and others1991 CLC 1687 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-31Read full judgment →
• SH. Abdul Haq & Sons Ltd. vs The Punjab Industrial Development1991 PLD Lahore 427 · Lahore High Court
  judicial validitypresumption of regularityjudicial recordelevation of judgeministerial actswritten judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to the validity of a written judgment delivered by a former Chief Justice of the High Court who had been elevated to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether a written judgment, signed by a Judge who subsequently ceased to hold office, becomes legally void if the administrative processing of the file, such as the addition of a 'blue slip,' occurred after the Judge's departure. The Court held that there is a strong presumption of credibility that a judgment signed by a Judge was executed while they held office. Administrative or ministerial acts, such as the receipt of the file by the office or the addition of a blue slip by staff, do not rebut this presumption. The Court established that the date of a judicial signature cannot be determined solely by the date of administrative file processing; the two are distinct, and the judicial record enjoys a presumption of regularity that cannot be overturned by ministerial notations.

  Questions settled

  • Does a written judgment signed by a judge lose its legal validity if the file is processed by the office after the judge has left office?
  • Can administrative notations like a 'blue slip' rebut the presumption of regularity attached to a judicial record?
  • Is the date of a judicial signature necessarily determined by the date of receipt of the file in the office?
  Read full judgment →
• SH Ujauddin vs The State1991 MLD 1357 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Secretary to the Government of Punjab and others vs Mst. Hussan Ara1991 CLC 1699 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
• Sawar Muhammad Sharif and 2 others vs Makhmool through Legal Heirs1991 MLD 561 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-18Read full judgment →
• Satia vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1968 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
• Sarfuddin Chughtai vs Settlement Department and others1991 MLD 1736 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Khan and 3 others vs Abdul Karim and another1991 MLD 1230 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Hussain vs Allah Rakha and 2 others1991 MLD 735 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-16Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 52 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-14Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmed And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1093 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-02Read full judgment →
• Sardar Tahir Mahmood vs Ikramulhaq1991 MLD 164 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-15Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 949 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Sardar Masih And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1221 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Sardar M. Afsar Khan vs Habib Bank Limited and another1991 MLD 1962 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 215 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-22Read full judgment →
• Sardar Hidayat Ullah Khan Mokal vs Government of the Punjab1991 PLC (C.S.) 532 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
• Sardar Asghar Ali and others vs Muhammad Salim and 11 others1991 MLD 908 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1033 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Sarang And Others vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 1060 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
• Saqib Brothers and another vs Messrs Ciba Geigy (Pakistan) Limited1991 CLC 710 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-29
  regular first appealproper judgmentnon-evaluation of evidenceremand of caserecovery suitcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Chiniot, on 10-04-1989, which decreed the respondent's suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,77,459.86. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the trial court's judgment constituted a proper judgment under the relevant procedural law when it failed to discuss, consider, or disbelieve the evidence produced by the defendants. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court failed to write a proper judgment because it completely omitted any discussion or evaluation of the statements made by the three defense witnesses, rendering it a one-sided decision. Consequently, the appellate court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision after hearing the parties. The key principle laid down is that a trial court is legally obliged to consider, discuss, and evaluate the evidence produced by both parties before rendering a decision, and failure to do so vitiates the judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judgment that fails to discuss or disbelieve the evidence produced by the defendants qualify as a proper judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the legal consequence when a trial court ignores and fails to consider the statements of defense witnesses?
  • Can an appellate court remand a matter for a fresh decision if the trial court delivers a one-sided judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 63 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-02Read full judgment →
• Sanatta vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1516 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Samuel And 9 Others vs Mst. Rabia Bibi And Others1991 P Cr. L J 885 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Samiullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 187 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-13Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah vs Works Manager and others1991 PLC 411 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-06Read full judgment →
• Salim Alias Seema vs The State1991PCr.LJ 1616 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Salamat Masih vs The Syndicate, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad1991 PLC (C.S.) 489 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Salamat Ali vs Gulzar Ahmad and others1991 MLD 1614 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Sakhi Muhammad and others vs Hakim Ali and others1991 CLC 1655 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
• Sajjad And 3 Others vs The State1991PCr.LJ 1 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-30Read full judgment →
• Sajawal vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 361 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
• Saifur Rehman vs District Education Officer (W), Jhang and 4 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 526 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
• Saifullah Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 257 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-16Read full judgment →
• Saifal vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1900 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
• Saif Elahi And Others vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1013 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
• Said alias Khurshid and others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1991 MLD 2351 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-11Read full judgment →
• Said Alam vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1947 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali vs Mst. Iffat Akram and others1991 MLD 2338 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-30Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1901 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Saee And 2 Others vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1710 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Shah and 8 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 220 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-15Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Masih Alias Rangeela vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1600 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
• Sadio vs Muhammad Yaqoob And 3 Others1991 P Cr. L J 824 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
• Sabri Mumtaz vs Khalil Abdullah, S.P. Cantt., Lahore and 2 others1991 MLD 2016 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-29Read full judgment →
• S. Taseer Ali vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal EtcK.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 188 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• S. Taseer Ali vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 3 others1991 PLC 815 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• S. Muhammad Din & Sons (Aziz) Ltd. vs Assistant Collector and others1991 CLC 1191 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
• S. Ijaz Hussain Shah vs National Bank of Pakistan through its President1991 PLC (C.S.) 492 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
• S. Abdul Aziz Ghaznavi vs Provincial Election Authority and others1991 CLC 1494 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• S H. Malik vs Addl. District Judge Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 4 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-28Read full judgment →
• Rustam vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1519 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Rustam Ali vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1991 CLC 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Rupali Polyester Ltd. vs Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution and another1991 PLC 318 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-07
  constitutional petitionalternative remedybooks of accountcontribution assessmentemployees old age benefitsjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges various orders passed by the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution directing an industrial concern to produce certain books of account and assessing contributions. The core legal questions involve whether the institution is legally empowered to requisition general ledgers and other account books under section 12 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, and whether a constitutional petition is competent when alternative statutory remedies under sections 33, 34, and 35 of the Act remain unexhausted. The Lahore High Court held that the institution is fully authorized under section 12 of the Act to require the production of account books, including general ledgers, relating to employment and wages, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the court held that the constitutional petition was incompetent because the petitioner failed to avail of the adequate and efficacious alternative remedies provided by the statute. The key principle laid down is that an aggrieved party must exhaust statutory remedies such as complaints, reviews, and appeals before invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, particularly when the challenge to the institution's jurisdiction is unfounded.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution legally direct an employer to produce general ledgers and other books of account under section 12 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
  • Is a constitutional petition competent when the petitioner has failed to avail of the alternative statutory remedies of complaint, review, and appeal provided under sections 33, 34, and 35 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
  • What is the legal consequence if an employer fails to maintain records or submit returns as required by the regulations under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Rupali Polyester Limited, Lahore Road, Sheikhupura vs Employees Old(K.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 88) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rupali Polyester Limited vs Employees Old Age Benefits Institution(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 269) · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-07Read full judgment →