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.

• Akhtar Ali vs Iiird Additional Sessions Judge, Okara and 2 others1990 P Cr. L J 925 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-17Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs Muhammad Khan And Other1990 CLC 1828 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-17
  Pre-emptionCivil revisionLimitationLachesDelay condonationPunjab Pre-emptions Act 1913Co-sharerRevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application stemmed from a pre-emption suit where the plaintiff, a co-sharer, sought to pre-empt a sale of land. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff estopped and the suit time-barred. An appeal was dismissed without touching merits, citing Supreme Court judgments. The High Court, while acknowledging that a recent Supreme Court decision (Ahmad v. Abdul Aziz PLD 1989 SC 771) supported the petitioner's claim that 'talabs' could not be engrafted on statutory pre-emption qualifications under the Punjab Pre-emptions Act, 1913, ultimately dismissed the revision. The dismissal was based on the application being filed beyond the customary 90-day period for revisions, with no satisfactory explanation for the significant delay. The court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction is discretionary, requiring prompt action, and that a 'wait and see' policy for changes in legal views does not justify laches, which creates equities for the vendee.

  Questions settled

  • Can 'talabs' be engrafted upon statutory qualifications for pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emptions Act, 1913?
  • What is the customary period of limitation for filing a civil revision application in the High Court?
  • Is a 'wait and see' policy for changes in Supreme Court views a valid explanation for delay in filing a civil revision?
  • Does delay in filing a pre-emption claim or revision create equities in favour of the vendee?
  • Can a civil revision application filed beyond the customary 90-day period be entertained without a satisfactory explanation for the delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar vs Amir and another1990 P Cr. L J 1859 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-28Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 917 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-04Read full judgment →
• Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 551 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-23Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Shah vs Mst. Bibi Sakhian and anothers1990 PLD Lahore 48 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-19
  constitutional petitionlandlord-tenant relationshipevictionCantonments Rent Restriction Actquestion of titleres judicatabenami transactionappellate jurisdictionrent controlstatutory tenancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Additional District Judge, who, exercising appellate authority under Section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963, set aside the Rent Controller's dismissal of an eviction petition and ordered the petitioner's eviction. The core legal questions concerned whether mere occupation constituted a landlord-tenant relationship under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963, and the applicability of the rule from Rehmat Ullah's case regarding complex title disputes in rent proceedings. The High Court held that the definition of 'tenant' in the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 is not of wider connotation and is limited to persons inducted into tenancy by agreement or statute, not mere occupation or trespassers. It further ruled that where a complex question of title creates genuine doubt, the Rent Controller or appellate authority should direct the landlord to the Civil Court for title adjudication. The Additional District Judge's order, having failed to follow this principle, was declared without lawful authority and set aside, restoring the Rent Controller's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere occupation of premises is sufficient to create a landlord and tenant relationship under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963?
  • Can an appellate authority under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 decide a complicated question of title in an eviction petition?
  • What is the effect of the rule laid down in Rehmat Ullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 SCM R 1064 on rent proceedings involving title disputes?
  • Does a finding on an incidental question of title by a Rent Controller or appellate authority operate as res judicata if leave to approach a Civil Court is not granted?
  • Is the definition of 'tenant' in the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 wider than in other rent laws, such as the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 or the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1496 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs Khalid Mehmood and 2 others1990 MLD 1224 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-03Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan and 3 others vs Muhammad Akram and 5 others1990 P Cr. L J 580 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-21Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hussain Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 719 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1272 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-29Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Bashir Ahmad and 2 others1990 MLD 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-04Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and another vs The Additional District Judge, Sargodha and 21990 PLD Lahore 425 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-10
  constitutional petitionfraud and misrepresentationconsent decreelimitationappealabilitycivil procedurerevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, which had accepted an appeal and set aside a trial court order dismissing an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal questions involved whether an appellate court can decide an appeal without recording a finding on a crucial issue of limitation decided against the appellant by the trial court, and whether an order passed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is appealable. The Lahore High Court held that the Additional District Judge acted illegally by ignoring the issue of limitation and that an order dismissing an application under section 12(2) is not appealable under section 104 or Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court laid down the principles that an appellate court must adjudicate upon all foundational findings of the trial court, particularly limitation, and that an incompetent appeal cannot be deemed a revision without a conscious exercise of discretion by the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can accept an appeal without reversing the trial court's finding on the issue of limitation?
  • Is an order passed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 appealable under section 104 or Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Can an incompetent appeal be treated as a revision without a conscious exercise of discretion by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Afzal vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 540 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-19Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzaq vs The State1990 MLD 184 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-23Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1856 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sami vs Abdul Ghaffar1990 PLD Lahore 378 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-16
  constitutional petitionelection petitioncorrupt practiceillegal practiceElection Tribunalstandard of proofno evidencematerially affected
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a returned candidate challenging the Election Tribunal's judgment, which declared his local council election void and ordered fresh polling due to alleged gross irregularities, missing counter-foils, and temporary stoppage of polling. The core legal questions were whether an Election Tribunal can declare an election void without objective evidence proving that corrupt or illegal practices occurred with the consent/connivance of the returned candidate, and whether failure to establish that the election result was materially affected vitiates such an order. The High Court held that findings of corrupt or illegal practice must be supported by objective evidence and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, similar to criminal cases, rather than based on mere presumptions or lack of evidence. The Court ruled that under the relevant Election Rules, an election cannot be declared void as a whole without a specific finding that non-compliance or irregularities materially affected the election outcome. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Election Tribunal's judgment as being without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of proof required to declare an election void on the ground of corrupt or illegal practice?
  • Can an Election Tribunal declare an election void as a whole under Rule 15 of the Election Petition Rules 1979 without finding that the election result was materially affected?
  • Does the absence of a candidate or polling agent at the restarting of polling invalidate the election proceedings?
  • Is a judicial order or finding based on mere presumption and no objective evidence considered an order passed without lawful authority under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Additional District Judge, Faisalabad and another1990 MLD 1221 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman And Others vs Muhammad Waris1990 CLC 265 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman alias Mana vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1336 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs The State1990 MLD 1023 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 505 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif And Others vs Rasul Bakhsh Shah1990 CLC 1497 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jamil Asghar And Others vs Settlement Commissioner (Land) And Other1990 CLC 1525 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 568 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-24
  culpable homicidegrave and sudden provocationconcurrent sentencesconsecutive sentencesquantum of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, convicted under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, challenged his conviction and the seven-year sentence imposed by the trial court. The core legal questions were whether the conviction was sustainable based on the appellant's admission and evidence, and whether the sentence should be reduced or ordered to run concurrently with a sentence from a separate, unrelated criminal case. The Court held that the conviction was sound, as the trial court correctly assessed the evidence, including eye-witness testimony and the appellant's admission of provocation. Regarding sentencing, the Court affirmed that the quantum of punishment must reflect the gravity of the offense and the circumstances. Furthermore, the Court held that under Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, consecutive sentences are the general rule, and concurrent sentences are an exception applicable only when offenses are intimately connected. Since the two offenses were unrelated, occurring at different times and places, the Court refused to order concurrent sentences and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when based on both the accused's admission and corroborating prosecution evidence?
  • Does the general rule under Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require sentences to run consecutively unless the court directs otherwise?
  • Can a court order sentences for two separate, unrelated criminal offenses to run concurrently?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs The Director-General, L.Da. and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 553 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Lahore Development AuthorityK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 23 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Muhammad Shafi1990 CLC 1472 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Abdul Sattar1990 PLC 30 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Khan vs Syed Tasawar Hussain Shah1990 MLD 213 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1465 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and 5 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1565 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Oureshi, Advocate vs Federation of Pakistan and others1990 PLD Lahore 488 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-18
  constitutional petitionEighth Amendmentquo warrantoparliamentary proceedingsdisqualification of memberslocal council membership
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the validity of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, arguing that it was passed without the requisite two-thirds majority because numerous members of the National Assembly had allegedly lost their seats under Article 12-A of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Election) Order, 1977 for failing to resign from local bodies. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's premise was fundamentally flawed because Article 12-A's resignation period was extended and the Article was subsequently omitted entirely from the statute book by Presidential Order No. 27 of 1985 before any disqualification could take effect. Furthermore, the court held that under Articles 67 and 69 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, parliamentary proceedings cannot be called into question due to procedural irregularities or the participation of members allegedly not entitled to sit, and that a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued regarding an assembly dissolved years prior. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution is ultra vires on the assertion that it was carried out by members allegedly not validly seated in the House?
  • Whether the validity of proceedings in the National Assembly can be called in question under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Whether a writ of quo warranto can be issued in respect of members of an assembly that has already been dissolved?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz And Another vs Ata Muhammad And Another1990 CLC 884 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz and 2 others vs Abdul Majid and another1990 MLD 102 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-13Read full judgment →
• Abbas and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 911 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-10Read full judgment →
• Aamer Bashir vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 532 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-19Read full judgment →
• (Mst) Hussain Jan Etc. vs (Mst) Channo BiK.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 147 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-06Read full judgment →
• Zulqernain Khan vs Mian M. Aslam, M.I.C.1989 P Cr. L J 2470 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-17Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 747 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-26Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1780 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-15Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar And 3 Others vs The State1989 MLD 2806 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali alias Zulla and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 489 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 760 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmad Alias Zulfiqar vs The State1989 MLD 4077 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-27Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Begum vs Muhammad Bashir1989 MLD 4246 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Zilla Council, Sargodha vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1989 PLC 478(2) · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
• Zilla Council Sargodha vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal EtcK.L.R 1989 Labour & Service 57 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
• Zila Council, Sargodha vs Messrs Muhammad Siddique & Co. And Another1989 MLD 3027 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Zia Ullah Khan and others vs Government of Punjab and others1989 PLD Lahore 554 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-30
  Special Courts for Speedy Trialsreasonable classificationequal protection of lawtrial in absentiaright to counselrepeal of Ordinancetextual amendmentArticle 264constitutional validity
  Summary & questions settled

  Sixty-eight connected matters, comprising constitutional petitions and criminal revisions, challenged the constitutional validity of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance II of 1987, Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act XV of 1987, and the Amending Ordinance XIX of 1988, along with government notifications transferring cases to Special Courts. The petitioners argued the statutes violated Article 25 (equality before law) and Article 10 (right to counsel) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Lahore High Court upheld the general classification of heinous offences under Section 2(c) and Section 5 as a reasonable classification satisfying Article 25. However, the Court held that Section 8(4) and (5), permitting trial in absentia and appointment of state defense counsel, violated Article 10. Crucially, the Court determined that the amending Ordinance XIX of 1988, which purported to extend the parent Act's life from one year to two years, stood repealed after four months under Article 89(2). Because Article 264 lacked a provision equivalent to Section 6A of the General Clauses Act 1897, the textual amendment did not survive the repeal. Consequently, Act XV of 1987 expired upon the repeal of Ordinance XIX of 1988, rendering subsequent notifications and Special Court proceedings without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the classification of offences under Section 2(c) of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act XV of 1987 satisfies the requirements of reasonable classification under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a statutory provision permitting the criminal trial of an accused person in absentia with a court-appointed advocate violate the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of choice under Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a textual amendment made to a principal Act by a Presidential Ordinance survive the constitutional repeal of that Ordinance under Article 89(2) in the absence of a provision analogous to Section 6A of the General Clauses Act 1897 in Article 264 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is an accused entitled to an opportunity of being heard before the Government issues an executive order or notification transferring their case for trial to a Special Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia Muhammad And Others vs Ghulam Muhammad1989 MLD 4228 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Zatun And Others vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands), And Other1989 MLD 4943 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-04Read full judgment →
• Zarban Shah vs District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan and another1989 P Cr. L J 685 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
• Zaman vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 231(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
• Zaman vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1860 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
• Zakir Hussain Alias Zakir Ahsan vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 2 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
• Zakir Ali vs The State1989 MLD 4795 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-22Read full judgment →
• Zakar Nazar Hussain vs Khan Muhammad And Other1989 MLD 4950 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
• Zainab Bibi vs The S.H.OK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 654 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
• Zahur Din vs Anjuman Himayat-I-IslamK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 121 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Mohy Ud Din vs Syed Afzal Hussain Naqvi And Other1989 MLD 3983 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Din vs Anjuman Himayat Islam1989 MLD 480 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ali And Others vs Barkhurdar And Other1989 MLD 251 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 524 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-01Read full judgment →
• Zahid Nadeem vs The State1989 MLD 630 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
• Zahid Majid And Another vs The State1989 MLD 4152 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
• Zahid Bashir and others vs The State and others1989 P Cr. L J 790 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Zaheeruddin vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 92 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ud Din vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 160 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 4612 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-05Read full judgment →
• Zafarul Hassan And Others vs Khawaja Muhammad Kalim And Other1989 MLD 2756 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
• Zafariqbal vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Crimnal Cases 545 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs The State1989 MLD 2912 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2187 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-27Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs Amjad Javed And Other1989 MLD 743 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and Another vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 126 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-31Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1189 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-01Read full judgment →
• Zafar Chaudhry vs Ansar Butt And Another1989 MLD 4517 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
• Zafar Alias Chandi vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 748 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 557 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2368 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ahmad vs Abdul IiakimK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 63 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
• Younis Masih alias Yousu Masih and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 103 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
• Younis Maseih Alias Yasoo Maseih vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 95 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
• Yaseen Etc. vs Bashir Ahmad Etc.K.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 107 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
• Yaseen And Others vs Bashir Ahmad And Other1989 MLD 478 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
• Yaseen Alias Ghori vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 741 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-18Read full judgment →
• Yaqoub Masih And Others vs Province of Punjab1989 MLD 3111 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
• World Trade Corporation, Faisalabad vs Central Board Of Revenue, IslamabadPTCL 1989 CL. 478 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• World Trade Corporation vs Central Board of Revenue1989 MLD 4310 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-11
  customs dutyFederally Administered Tribal Areassuo motu revisionSea Customs Actconstitutional petitionmisdeclarationjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 10th June, 1985 passed by the Central Board of Revenue. The core legal question involved whether the Customs Act, 1969, applied to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas at the relevant time in March 1981, and whether the Central Board of Revenue possessed suo motu revisional powers under the repealed Sea Customs Act, 1878, to set aside a final appellate order. The court held that the Customs Act, 1969, was not extended to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas until 7th January, 1984, meaning the Sea Customs Act, 1878, governed the matter during the relevant period. Furthermore, the court held that no suo motu revisional powers existed under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, to reopen cases that had attained finality. Consequently, the impugned order of the Central Board of Revenue was declared to be without lawful authority and set aside. The key principle laid down is that repealed statutory frameworks and constitutional extension requirements govern retrospective jurisdiction in tribal areas, and authorities cannot exercise suo motu powers without explicit statutory backing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Customs Act, 1969 applied to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in March 1981 without formal presidential extension?
  • Did the Central Board of Revenue possess suo motu revisional powers under the Sea Customs Act, 1878?
  • Can an appellate order that has attained finality under the Sea Customs Act, 1878 be reopened through a notice issued under the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Workers Front, Habib Bank Ltd., City Zone, Multan vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Multan Region, Multan and 2 others1989 PLC 969 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
• West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority, WAPDA1989 MLD 4183 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-23Read full judgment →
• West Pakistan Province vs Major Ata Muhammad Khan And Other1989 CLC 1022 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-18Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore And Another vs Muhammad Ayub Khan1989 MLD 3440 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority vs Mian Ghulam Bari1989 CLC 1605 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority And Others vs Isfahan Rice1989 MLD 3306 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
• Waqar Zaheer and Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 608 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Waqar Zaheer and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 491 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
• Waqar Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 3183 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
• WAPDA vs Saeed Ice Factory1989 MLD 4329 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →