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.

• Haji Rab Nawaz vs Mian Safdar Khan 3 and Other1982 PLD Lahore 309 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhmmad vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 547 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Manzoor Ahmad and Others vs Commissioner, Sargodha Division1982 CLC 1554 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haji Khan Muhammad Etc. vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 580 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Bashir Ahmad and 3 Others vs Muhammad Nazir Tahir; Rent1982C L C 1698 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haji Bashir Ahmad and 3 Others vs Muhammad Nazir Tahir, Rent1982 CLC 1698 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
• Haft Muhammad Sharif vs Punjab Province and Others1982 CLC 2129 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Bashir vs District Judge, Sargodha and Another1982 CLC 944 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-05Read full judgment →
• Habib Ahmed Qari vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 51 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-16Read full judgment →
• Ha Keem Hafiz Muhammad Yaqub vs Deputy Administrator (Residual1982 CLC 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
• Gulla and 11 Other vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 205 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-31Read full judgment →
• Gulab Khanam and Another vs Mst. Noor Jahan1982 CLC 663 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-02Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan vs N/A1982 CLC 1142 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan vs Muhammad Rafique and Another1982 CLC 1142 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
• Gondal, JJ Abdul Wahid and Another vs Din Muhammad and Other1982 PLD Lahore 168 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-18
  quo warrantointerim reliefelection disputeunion councilpublic officefrauduncontested election
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition in the nature of quo warranto challenged the election of respondent No. 1 as a member of the Union Council, alleging that his unopposed election was procured through fraud and misrepresentation before the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners sought interim relief to restrain the respondent from performing official duties, including participating in the upcoming election for the Union Council Chairman. The core legal question was whether an elected member, whose election is challenged on grounds of fraud, should be restrained from performing public functions via an interim order pending final adjudication. The Court held that no interim relief should be granted. It reasoned that an elected official, once notified, is entitled to function until the matter is finally adjudicated. The Court emphasized that restraining an elected representative would create a vacuum, leaving the constituency unrepresented, and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable loss or injury. The principle laid down is that courts should generally avoid issuing interim injunctions against elected public representatives performing their duties without a final judgment on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court grant interim relief to restrain an elected member from performing official duties pending the final adjudication of a quo warranto petition?
  • Does the procurement of an election through alleged fraud or misrepresentation automatically disqualify an elected member from performing public functions before a final court decision?
  • Is an elected member of a Union Council entitled to perform official duties after being officially notified as elected, despite a pending challenge to their election?
  Read full judgment →
• Golay Khan vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 271 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
• Gohar Rehman vs Ali Zaman and Another1982 P Cr. L J 495 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-07Read full judgment →
• Gillat Shah vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 933 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul and Another vs Additional Commissioner, Revenue and 2 Others1982 CLC 1404 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul and Another vs Additional Commissioner, Revenue and 2 Other1982 CLC 1404 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs THe State1982 P Cr. L J 524 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Deputy Director; Military Lands and Cantonment1982 CLC 550 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool Etc. vs Settlement Commissioner (Land) Etc1982 CLC 166 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir and 5 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1271 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Lone vs Messrs Lufthansa German Airlines, Lahore1982 CLC 387 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 407 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Another1982 CLC 1665 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa and Others vs The State1982 P. Cr. L J 688 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 231 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Sultan Muhammad and ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 215 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Muhammad Fazil and Others1982 CLC 2135 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Muhammad Fazil and Other1982 CLC 2135 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Etc vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 428 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1159 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and 3 Others vs The State.1982 P Cr. L J 986 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and 2 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 61 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-19Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Meharban and 3 Other vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner1982 PLD Lahore 800 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Syed Nazim Hussain and 2 Others1982 CLC 1568 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Syed Nazim Hussain and 2 Other1982 CLC 1568 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Muhammad Abu Tahir and Others1982 CLC 1371 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Muhammad Abu Tahir and Other1982 CLC 1371 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Abdur Rehman and 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 519 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-08
  rent restrictionjurisdiction of rent controllerevictiondeposit of rentdenial of tenancynatural justicewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller against the petitioner. The core legal question is whether a Rent Controller can validly order a tenant to deposit rent under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, when the tenant has challenged the Rent Controller's jurisdiction by asserting that the disputed premises (a factory) do not constitute a 'building' or 'rented land' under the Ordinance. The Court held that where a tenant challenges the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller by denying the applicability of the Ordinance to the premises, the Rent Controller cannot pass an order for the deposit of rent without first adjudicating the jurisdictional issue. The Court reasoned that an order for rent deposit is a significant step that cannot be enforced if the foundational jurisdiction is contested. Furthermore, the Court held that passing an eviction order for non-compliance with a rent deposit order, without first deciding the pending issue of jurisdiction or allowing the tenant to complete their evidence, violates the principles of natural justice. The eviction order and the rent deposit order were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a decision on the jurisdictional issue.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller order the deposit of rent under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 before deciding a challenge to their jurisdiction?
  • Does a plea that the disputed premises is a factory constitute a denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Is a Rent Controller required to adjudicate the issue of jurisdiction before passing an order for the deposit of rent?
  • Can an eviction order be sustained if it is based on non-compliance with a rent deposit order passed without deciding a pending challenge to jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs The State.1982 P Cr. L J 1297 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ghous vs Muhammad Saeed1982 CLC 553 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Fatima Etc. vs Syed Bashir Ahmad1982 CLC 1573 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farids vs Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, and Other1982 PLD Lahore 626 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali and Other vs Muhammad Siddique and Other1982 PLD Lahore 69 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-22Read full judgment →
• Ghazi Abdul Yawar vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, Etc.1982 CLC 1459 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-14Read full judgment →
• Ghazi Abdul Yawar vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, Etc1982 CLC 1459 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-29Read full judgment →
• Forest Department through Divisional Forest Officer, Sialkot vs Mst.1982 PLD Lahore 287 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-31Read full judgment →
• Forbes Forces Campbell & Co. Ltd. and 3 Others vs Habib-Ur-Rehman1982 PLC 20 · Lahore High Court
  grievance noticetermination of servicelimitation periodemployerindustrial relationswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondent, employed as a Technical Assistant by the petitioners, had his services terminated by the Branch Manager at Lahore. He challenged his termination before the Labour Court after sending telegrams and a grievance notice. The petitioners raised an objection that the petition before the Labour Court was time-barred, contending that an earlier telegram sent to the Managing Director at Karachi constituted a valid grievance notice, making the petition belated. The Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal rejected the petitioners' contention and held the grievance notice served on the Branch Manager at Lahore to be the proper notice, rendering the petition within time. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Managing Director did not act as the employer in the circumstances as he directed the respondent to deal with the local Lahore Manager who was competent in the matter. The key principle established is that whether a superior authority functions as an employer for the purpose of a grievance notice depends on the specific facts and conduct of the parties, and where the superior authority declines direct intervention and refers the employee back to the local manager, a subsequent notice served on the local manager constitutes the valid statutory grievance notice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a telegram sent to a Managing Director requesting intervention against a subordinate's order constitutes a valid grievance notice under labor laws?
  • Can an establishment have multiple employers for the purpose of serving a grievance notice?
  • Whether the limitation period for approaching the Labour Court runs from the rejection of a request made to a superior authority who is not acting as the employer in the specific context?
  Read full judgment →
• Feroze Khan vs Mst. Meraj Begum and 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 332 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
• Fazal Muhammad vs Ali Ahmad Awan, Civil Judge with (Powers of1982 CLC 2354 · Lahore High Court · 1968-02-05Read full judgment →
• Fazal Muhammad vs Ali Ahmad Awan, Civil Judge with (Powers of Judge, Family Court, Rahim Yar Khan and Another1982 CLC 2354 · Lahore High Court · 1968-02-05Read full judgment →
• Fazal Karim Etc. vs Abdul Wahab1982 CLC 1594 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
• Fazal Haq vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 452 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-19
  concurrent sentencesinherent powers of High Courtpre-trial detentionSection 561-A Cr.P.C.sentencingcorrection of judgmentends of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a prisoner convicted under Section 302 and Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought a direction for his sentences of life imprisonment and seven years' rigorous imprisonment to run concurrently, and for the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to be applied regarding his pre-trial detention. The core legal question was whether the High Court, having already signed its judgment, possessed the jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order concurrent sentences and grant the benefit of statutory detention periods, despite the bar in Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against reviewing judgments. The Court held that it possessed the inherent power to secure the ends of justice and rectify omissions, noting that no person should suffer due to a court's inadvertent failure to issue necessary directions. The Court ordered the sentences to run concurrently and mandated the inclusion of pre-trial detention time, establishing that inherent powers under Section 561-A remain unaffected by the finality provisions of Section 369 when necessary to ensure justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the inherent power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order sentences to run concurrently after the judgment has been signed?
  • Is the High Court's inherent power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 limited or governed by the bar on review contained in Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a prisoner be denied the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to an inadvertent omission in the original sentencing order?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Elahi vs Settlement Commissioner and Others1982 CLC 1977 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-29Read full judgment →
• Fazal Elahi vs Settlement Commissioner and Other1982 CLC 1977 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-29Read full judgment →
• Fazal Din vs The State Amd 2 Others -1982 P Cr. L J .277 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz. and Another vs The State-1982 P Cr. L J 1140 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
• Fauad Anwar Latif vs Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties)1982 CLC 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-07Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs Rajany Khan and Another1982 CLC 2049 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-12Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs Nathu1982 CLC 2082 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs Muhammad Ismail and Other1982 CLC 598 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-18Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad and 6 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 187 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-18Read full judgment →
• Farzand Ali and 2 Other vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 776 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs Muhammad Rashid and Another1982 PLD Lahore 426 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-01
  pre-emptiondeclaratory decreecollusive decreeregular second appealcourt-feejurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption filed by the respondent against an oral sale of land, during the pendency of which the appellant-vendor obtained a declaratory decree claiming he remained the owner. The pre-emption suit was amended, and the trial court held the declaratory decree to be collusive and ineffective against the pre-emption right, ultimately decreeing the pre-emption suit, which decision was upheld in first appeal. The core legal question was whether a court trying a pre-emption suit has jurisdiction to examine and ignore a collusive declaratory decree passed by another court, and whether subsequent steps defeating pre-emption are valid. The Lahore High Court held that a court seized of a pre-emption suit is competent to treat a collusive declaratory decree as ineffective, drawing an analogy to rival pre-emption suits and re-sales aimed at defeating pre-emption. The Court laid down the principle that a collusive decree obtained to frustrate a pre-emption claim does not bar the pre-emption suit, and that courts may permit the makeup of deficient court-fee even after limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court trying a pre-emption suit has jurisdiction to hold a declaratory decree passed by another court to be collusive and ineffective?
  • Does a declaratory decree obtained by a vendor during the pendency of a pre-emption suit defeat the right of pre-emption?
  • Can a court permit the plaintiff to make good a deficiency in court-fee after the period of limitation has expired?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1066 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
• Faisalabad Development Authority, Faisalabad through Its Director1982 CLC 415 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-20Read full judgment →
• Faisalabad Development Authority vs Hamid Mukhtar Piracha1982 PLC (C. S.) 35 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
• Evacuee Trust Property. Board vs Mian Iq.Bal Mahmood and Other1982 CLC 2186 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Evacuee Trust Property Board vs Muhammad SharifP L D1982 Lahore 151 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-08Read full judgment →
• Evacuee Trust Property Board vs Mian Iqbal Mahmood and Others1982 CLC 2186 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-05Read full judgment →
• Evacuee Trust Property Board vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner1982 CLC 23 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-11Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad Siddiqui vs Settlement Commissioner Etc.1982 CLC 997 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad Siddiqui vs Settlement Commissioner Etc1982 CLC 997 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad Piracha vs Judge, Special Court Banking and Othre1982 CLC 1625 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad Piracha vs Judge, Special Court Banking and Others1982 CLC 1625 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-01Read full judgment →
• DR. Saghir Alam Etc. vs Mst. K Aniz Fatima Etc.1982 CLC 68 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-07Read full judgment →
• DR. Muhammad Amin Chughtai vs Government of the Punjab and Another1982 PLD Lahore 277 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-13Read full judgment →
• DR. Miss I. Ali Muhammad vs Syed Zakaullah and Another1982 CLC 1895 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
• DR. Masood Khan vs Chairman, Arbitration Council, Wah and 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 532 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-09
  talaqMuslim Family Laws Ordinanceterritorial jurisdictionUnion Councillast residedpermanent residencearbitration councilreview petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition arose from a dispute regarding the territorial jurisdiction of a Union Council to entertain a notice of talaq under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The petitioner, a Pakistani citizen residing in the U.S.A., pronounced talaq against his wife and sent a notice to the Chairman of the Union Council, Wah, who returned it on the ground that the wife did not reside within its territorial limits. A learned Single Judge initially dismissed the petitioner's writ petition holding that disputed questions of residence could not be resolved in writ proceedings. Upon review, the Lahore High Court examined the interpretation of 'last resided' and 'permanently residing' under rule 3 of the Pakistan Muslim Family Laws Rules, 1961. The Court held that the words 'last resided' do not require permanent residence and should receive a liberal construction to include temporary stays after marriage to prevent frustrating the mandatory provisions of section 7. The Court further held that a person can retain permanent residence in Pakistan despite foreign residence and that the Chairman must inquire into and determine jurisdictional questions. The review was allowed with directions regarding the determination of jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the words 'last resided' under rule 3 of the Pakistan Muslim Family Laws Rules, 1961 require permanent residence or include temporary residence?
  • Does the Chairman of a Union Council have the authority to determine the question of territorial jurisdiction upon receipt of a notice of talaq?
  • Can a Pakistani citizen maintain a permanent residence in Pakistan for the purposes of family law despite acquiring residence abroad?
  • Whether a dispute regarding the residence of parties and the jurisdiction of a Union Council under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 is justiciable before a civil court in the first instance?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. M. H. Randhawa vs Punjab Province1982 PLC (C. S.) 159 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-23Read full judgment →
• DR. Hasan Ara and 6 Other Ss vs Mian Tajammal Hussain and 12 Other1982 CLC 653 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-02Read full judgment →
• DR. Bashir Ahmad vs Tim. Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1982 CLC 1068 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-18Read full judgment →
• DR. Bashir Ahmad vs The Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1982 CLC 1068 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-18Read full judgment →
• DR. Badshah Begum vs Muhammad Yaqub and Other1982 CLC 1862 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
• DR. Badshah Begum vs Muh a M Ma D Y a Qu B and Others1982 CLC 1862 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
• DR. Abdur Rehman vs Muhammad Ajmal Khan and Others1982 CLC 1499 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-30Read full judgment →
• DR. Abdur Rehman vs Muhammad Ajmal Khan and Other1982 CLC 1499 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-30Read full judgment →
• Dil Muhammad vs National Industrial Relations Commission and 31982 PLC 496 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
• Daraz Ali and Others vs Nathu Khan1982 CLC 2399 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-26
  pre-emption suitpecuniary jurisdictionretrospective operationprocedural lawlimitation periodmutationcourt-fee
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges an appellate judgment in a pre-emption suit, raising questions regarding the retrospective application of procedural amendments and the calculation of limitation. The core legal question concerns whether the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge via the Punjab Civil Courts (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978, allowed the High Court to validly transfer a pending appeal to the District Judge. The Court held that the amendment was procedural in nature, as it merely enlarged the forum's jurisdiction without affecting substantive rights, and thus applied retrospectively. Consequently, the transfer of the appeal was a valid procedural act. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the valuation for court-fee purposes in pre-emption suits is based on the year preceding the institution of the suit, not the appeal. Finally, the Court ruled that the limitation period for a pre-emption suit commences from the date of attestation of the mutation, not the date of entry, confirming the suit was filed within the statutory period. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an amendment enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of a District Judge apply retrospectively to pending appeals?
  • Is the transfer of an appeal from the High Court to a District Court due to a change in pecuniary jurisdiction a procedural act?
  • Does the limitation period for a pre-emption suit commence from the date of entry of a mutation or the date of its attestation?
  • Is the valuation for court-fee purposes in a pre-emption suit calculated based on the year preceding the institution of the suit or the appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Da. Miss I. Ali Muhammad vs Syed Zakaullah and Another1982 CLC 1895 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
• D. P. Edulii & Co. Ltd. vs Secretary, Excise & Taxation and Other1982 PLD Lahore 817 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-10Read full judgment →
• Crescent Textile Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore45 TAX 47 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-07Read full judgment →
• Crescent Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd., Faisalabad vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-19
  Intra-Court AppealExcise dutyProduction capacityAbatement of dutyAudi alteram partemNatural justiceChange of officerDelay in judgmentWithout lawful authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition wherein the appellant sugar mill challenged an abatement order passed by the Central Board of Revenue under Rule 4 of the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Sugar) Rules, 1972. The appellant had sought full excise duty exemption due to production shortfall beyond its control. Although oral hearings were conducted in 1977 by one Member of the Board, the final abatement order was rendered nearly a year later by a different Member without affording a fresh hearing. The High Court considered whether deciding an administrative or quasi-judicial matter without a personal hearing by the deciding officer, after substantial delay, violates principles of natural justice. The Lahore High Court accepted the appeal, holding that natural justice mandates that the person deciding must hear the party. Relying on the maxim audi alteram partem, the Court ruled that an order passed on notes by a predecessor after a year's gap is void for lack of lawful authority. The matter was remanded for fresh determination within one month.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory authority pass an order affecting a party's rights on the basis of a hearing conducted a year earlier by a different officer?
  • Whether the principle of audi alteram partem must be read into a statute where the provision does not expressly provide for an oral hearing?
  • Does an inordinate delay of nearly one year between the hearing and the rendering of an administrative or quasi-judicial order necessitate a fresh hearing?
  • Whether an order passed by a public authority without affording an adequate opportunity of hearing is void and without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Colony Thal Textile Mills Ltd. vs Messrs Zahid & Brorthers1982 CLC 1409 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-13Read full judgment →
• Co. Ltd. Lahore vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore Zone, Lahore46 TAX 143 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-12Read full judgment →
• Civil Original No, 20 of 1959 vs Not1982 CLC 2660 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-10Read full judgment →
• Ch: Ghulam Rasool vs Province of the Punjab1982 PLD Lahore 264 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-31Read full judgment →