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.

• Zore Khan and 6 OTHERSConvicts vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 297 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-22Read full judgment →
• Zeenat Textile Mills Ltd., Lahore vs The Controller of Capital Issues, Government of Pakistan1977 PLD Lahore 779 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zaliadar and 3 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 710 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-13Read full judgment →
• Zahur Ahmad and 3 0/Hers vs Tee State1977 P Cr. L J 47 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-27Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 1044 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-22Read full judgment →
• Zafar Etc. vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 476(1) · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-11Read full judgment →
• Zafar Abbas vs District Magistrate, Jhang and Others1977 PLD Lahore 949 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-06Read full judgment →
• Zaeoor Ahmad vs Mahmood Ali and Another1977 PLD Lahore 1377 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-26
  Permanent Transfer Deedfunctus officiosettlement authoritiesvoid ordervoidable orderfraudwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges an order passed by the Settlement Commissioner, which altered the transfer price of the petitioner's property portion after a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) had already been issued. The core legal question concerns the finality of settlement proceedings and the jurisdiction of authorities to interfere after the issuance of a P.T.D. The Court held that settlement authorities become functus officio upon the issuance of a P.T.D., and can only interfere if the original order was void ab initio or obtained through fraud. The Court clarified that fraud requires proof of an intention to deceive or induce action through misrepresentation, and an order obtained by fraud is voidable, not void. Conversely, a void order is one passed without jurisdiction or in violation of mandatory law. Finding that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner’s initial order was passed with independent application of mind and without fraud, the Court ruled that the Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to reopen the matter. Consequently, the impugned order was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Can settlement authorities interfere with property rights after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
  • Is an order obtained by fraud void or voidable?
  • What constitutes a void order in the context of settlement proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaeemul Farooq Malik vs University of the Punjab Etc.1977 PLD Lahore 1334 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-04Read full judgment →
• Yusuf Ali Khan, BARRIsTERATLAw vs Malik Tahir Mahmood and Another1977 P Cr. L J 913 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-29Read full judgment →
• Yousuf and 5 others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 134 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-27Read full judgment →
• Yasin Sons Ltd., Multan vs The Water and Power Development1977 PLD Lahore 937 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Yaqoob vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 519 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-03Read full judgment →
• Wt. Muhammad Ahmad (Represented by His Legal Hems) vs Da. Niaz1977 PLD Lahore 945 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Works Manager, WAPDA Electrical & Mechanical Workshop, Lahore1977 PLD Lahore 321 · Lahore High Court · 1967-09-21Read full judgment →
• West Pakistan through the 'Executive Engineer, Rawalpindi- Appellant1977 PLD Lahore 1013 · Lahore High Court
  arbitration awardarbitrator's authoritypersona designataestoppelrevocation of referencejurisdiction of arbitrator
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a trial court order making an arbitration award a rule of the court. The dispute arose from a construction contract where the parties appointed a Superintending Engineer as the sole arbitrator. During proceedings, the arbitrator was transferred to a different post, prompting the appellant to argue that his authority as arbitrator ceased upon his transfer. The core legal question was whether an arbitrator appointed by designation (by virtue of holding a specific office) loses jurisdiction upon transfer from that office, and whether a party is estopped from challenging such authority after participating in proceedings. The Court held that the arbitrator's authority did not terminate upon his transfer, as the Arbitration Act contains no provision for automatic cessation of authority in such circumstances. Furthermore, the Court held that the appellant was estopped from challenging the arbitrator's competence, having previously opposed the revocation of the arbitrator's authority and continued to participate in the proceedings. The principle established is that an arbitrator appointed by designation remains authorized unless removed by the court, and a party participating in proceedings without objection is estopped from later challenging the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an arbitrator appointed by virtue of holding a specific public office lose their authority upon transfer to a different post?
  • Can an arbitrator's authority be revoked without the leave of the court under the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Is a party who participates in arbitration proceedings without objection estopped from later challenging the arbitrator's jurisdiction?
  • Under what circumstances does an arbitrator cease to have jurisdiction over a dispute under the Arbitration Act 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• West Pakistan Small Industries Corporation, Lahore vs Haji Bashir Ah1977 PLD Lahore 656 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-18Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority through Its Chairman and Another- Petitioners vs Messrs Abdur Razzaq Muhammad Iqbal- Plaintiff1977 PLD Lahore 5 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-16Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority Througfi Its Chairman, Lahore vs Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Authority, Lahore and Anotf Er-s1977 PLD Lahore 1156 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Wassan and 21 Others vs Hassan and 6 Others1977 PLD Lahore 429 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-07Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs The State and 7 Others1977 P Cr. L J 556 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-20Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad and 2 Others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner1977 PLD Lahore 390 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-28Read full judgment →
• Umar Din vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 3 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-22Read full judgment →
• Umar Daraz Khan vs The Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab,.1977 PLD Lahore 1102 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tian Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore vs Messrs Pak Cinemas Like, Lahore1977 PLD Lahore 1053 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• The State vs Yusuf Ali Khan, Bar-at-Law1977 PLD Lahore 456 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-24Read full judgment →
• The State vs Rab Nawaz1977 PLD Lahore 1063 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-04Read full judgment →
• The State vs Qazi Muhammad Tufail1977 PLD Lahore 486 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-04
  contempt of courtillegal detentionunqualified apologypurge of contemptdepartmental disqualificationhabeas corpuspolice misconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns contempt of court proceedings initiated against a police officer (S.H.O.) for illegal detention of individuals and misleading the High Court during habeas corpus proceedings. The core legal question was whether the accused, having committed contempt by detaining persons and providing false statements, should be punished or discharged following his subsequent conduct. The court held that the accused’s submission of an unqualified apology, his plea of guilty, and his voluntary compensation to the victims demonstrated genuine contrition and a desire to purge the contempt. Consequently, the court accepted the apology and discharged the accused, emphasizing that his courageous admission upheld the court's dignity. The court further directed that this discharge should not result in any departmental disqualification or disability for the officer, considering his long service record and the fact that he had reformed. The key principle established is that a sincere, unqualified apology coupled with a plea of guilty and restitution to the aggrieved party can justify the discharge of a contemner, thereby maintaining the court's authority while allowing for mercy.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court discharge a contemner who tenders an unqualified apology and pleads guilty?
  • Does an unconditional discharge in contempt proceedings prevent departmental disqualification for a government servant?
  • Can the satisfaction of the aggrieved party influence the court's decision in contempt proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad ARIFAccused1977 P Cr. L J 208 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-07Read full judgment →
• The State vs Majid Nizami, Editor, Printer, the Daily Nawa-I-Waqt, Lahore1977 PLD Lahore 490 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-30Read full judgment →
• The State vs Bashir Ahmad1977 PLD Lahore 340 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-12Read full judgment →
• The New Jhelum Transport Co. Ltd., (in Liquidation), Jhelum vs Malik1977 PLD Lahore 217 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-15Read full judgment →
• The General. Manager, Heavy Mechanical Complex, Taxila vs MR.1977 PLC 532 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-22Read full judgment →
• The General Manager. Heavy Mechanical Complex, Taxila vs MR.1977 PLD Lahore 998 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-21
  essential servicespower to regulatemaster and servantdismissal from serviceinquiryspecified authorityjurisdictiondiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal addresses whether the specified authority under Section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 possesses the jurisdiction to entertain and decide individual employee grievances and dismissal cases as an appellate or revisional authority. The respondent employees were dismissed from service for misconduct without statutory inquiries, and they successfully challenged their dismissals before the specified authority (National Industrial Relations Commission member/Chairman). The appellant employer challenged this through writ petitions, which were dismissed by a learned Single Judge who upheld the authority's jurisdiction. Upon appeal, the Lahore High Court held that the power to 'regulate' wages and terms and conditions under Section 6 of the Act is a legislative and rule-making power to issue general regulations, rules, or policies, and does not extend to adjudicating individual disputes or substituting for the Labour Court without framing prior regulations or obtaining necessary Central Government sanctions. However, because most employees were denied their fundamental right to an inquiry, the court declined to exercise discretionary constitutional jurisdiction to set aside the relief granted to them, except in one case where an inquiry was duly conducted. The appeals were consequently dismissed in part and accepted in part.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power to 'regulate' under Section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 include the power to decide individual cases of dismissal or termination?
  • Can a specified authority act as an appellate or revisional forum in place of the Labour Court without framing general regulations and rules?
  • Whether the exclusion of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance and Trade Unions Act under Section 7-A of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 automatically substitutes the specified authority for the Labour Court?
  • Should a constitutional writ petition be refused if granting it would perpetuate an original illegal order where no inquiry was held against an employee?
  Read full judgment →
• The Din and 3 Others vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 933 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-27Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner. of Income-Tax, Lahore vs Messrs Kohinoor1977 PLD Lahore 96 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-04Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Rawalpindi vs Messrs Sajjad Nabi Dar1977 PLD Lahore 75 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-06
  sales taxrefundimplied agencyfunctus officiotimber merchanttax referencefiduciary obligation
  Summary & questions settled

  This tax reference case concerns the entitlement of an assessee, a timber merchant, to claim a refund of sales tax collected from customers on timber sales and previously deposited into the central exchequer. The core legal question was whether an assessee who collects an amount specifically as sales tax from third parties, acting as a purported or implied agent of the government, is entitled to claim its refund from the state after payment. The Lahore High Court held in the negative, ruling that once the collected tax was paid to the exchequer, the assessee's implied agency concluded, making them functus officio with no lawful right to retain or reclaim the amount from the state. The court laid down the principle that money collected under the guise of sales tax from customers is received in a fiduciary capacity for the government, and the collector cannot subsequently dispute the principal's claim or seek a refund of funds properly remitted to the state treasury.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an assessee is entitled to a refund of sales tax collected from customers separately and paid to the state?
  • Does an agent who receives money on behalf of a principal have the right to retain or reclaim it?
  • At what point does an implied agency for collecting sales tax come to an end?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi vs Messrs Batala Cotton Ginning, Pressing & General Mills, Lyallpur1977 PLD Lahore 1171 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore Zone, Lahore vs Messrs1977 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-08Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore vs Messrs Colony Textile1977 PLD Lahore 83 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-31Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Investigation), Lahore vs Messrs1977 PLD Lahore 184 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-27Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 940 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Shafi-UN-Nabi vs District Magistrate, Rawalpindi and Anothers1977 PLD Lahore 600 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Nazar Hussain Shah vs Inspector-General of Police, Government1977 PLD Lahore 924 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Iqbal Hussain and 3 Others vs The Federal Land Commission and 29 Others1977 PLD Lahore 702 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Brothers, Lahore vs District Council, Lyallpur and Another-s1977 PLD Lahore 542 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-26
  execution of decreeauction-purchasedeposit of purchase moneymandatory provisionsnullity of saleexecution first appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Execution First Appeal arose from execution proceedings in which an ex parte decree was passed against the appellant, leading to the attachment and auction-sale of a bungalow. The core legal questions involved whether the provisions of Order XXI, rules 84, 85, and 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the deposit of auction-purchase money are mandatory, whether the executing Court had the jurisdiction to extend the time for deposit without the consent of parties, and whether an auction confirmed prior to the deposit is a nullity. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of rules 85 and 86 are mandatory, and a court has no jurisdiction to unilaterally extend the statutory period for deposit or confirm the sale before the full purchase money is deposited, rendering such orders null and void. The key principle laid down is that the mandatory timelines for depositing auction-purchase money cannot be bypassed by court acts unless agreed upon by the decree-holder and judgment-debtor, and any sale conducted in violation thereof is a nullity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Order XXI, rules 85 and 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the deposit of purchase money are mandatory?
  • Can an executing court extend the time for depositing the auction-purchase money without the mutual consent of the decree-holder and judgment-debtor?
  • Does an order confirming an auction-sale prior to the deposit of the full purchase money render the sale a nullity?
  • Can an auction-purchaser claim immunity from delay caused by a court's erroneous order indefinitely without applying the principle of reasonable time?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Akbar Ali Bokhari vs State Bank of Pakistan and 7 Others1977 PLD Lahore 234 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-31
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionmaster and servantessential servicedisciplinary proceedingsnatural justiceState Bank of Pakistanpublic office
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the dismissal of the petitioner, an Assistant Treasurer of the State Bank of Pakistan, following disciplinary proceedings for gross misconduct and breach of office procedure regarding prize bonds. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that the State Bank of Pakistan is not a 'person' performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation and that the employment is governed strictly by the law of master and servant. The Lahore High Court repelled these objections, holding that the State Bank of Pakistan is a body corporate and a 'person' within the meaning of Article 199(5), performs sovereign and federal functions connected with currency and banking, and that its employment is subject to statutory regulations and the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952, which ousts the simple theory of master and servant. On merits, the court held that the petitioner was afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity of defense conforming to the rules of natural justice, and any alleged procedural defects in the inquiry were cured when the punishing authority granted a personal hearing and opportunity to lead evidence. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the State Bank of Pakistan is a 'person' performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation within the contemplation of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the doctrine of master and servant apply to the employees of the State Bank of Pakistan when its services are declared essential under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952?
  • Whether procedural defects in a departmental inquiry stand cured if the punishing authority grants a personal hearing and a fresh opportunity to lead defense to the delinquent employee?
  • To what extent can a High Court re-assess evidence and examine factual findings in its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmaduddin vs Superintendent, District Jail, Lahore and 2 Others1977 P Cr. L J 415 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-01Read full judgment →
• Sultan vs Wali Dad and 3 Others1977 PLD Lahore 968 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-11Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ali vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 12 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-22Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad and 3 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 508 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-13Read full judgment →
• Sufi Jan Muham Mad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 597 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-27Read full judgment →
• Sufi Ghulam Nabi and another vs Muhammad Din and others1977 P Cr. L J 692 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-08Read full judgment →
• Suba vs Siraj Din1977 PLD Lahore 1263 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-27
  ejectmentpersonal requirementown occupationcharitable dispensaryresidential buildingnon-residential buildingWest Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from an order of the District Judge, Gujranwala, upholding the Rent Controller's eviction order against a tenant occupying residential premises. The landlord sought ejectment under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 on grounds of default and personal requirement to establish a charitable free dispensary. The Rent Controller and District Judge ruled in favor of the landlord on the ground of personal requirement. The tenant appealed to the High Court. The core legal questions were whether setting up a charitable free dispensary constituted trade or business converting a residential building to non-residential, and whether establishing such a dispensary fell under 'own occupation' for personal need under Section 13(3)(a)(i). The High Court held that trade or business implies an activity aimed at earning profit or livelihood, which excludes charitable distribution of free medicines. However, the Court ruled that setting up a public charitable dispensary does not constitute 'own occupation' for personal residence, as personal need must pertain to residential occupation for the landlord or their immediate dependents. The High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the eviction application.

  Questions settled

  • Does operating a charitable free dispensary constitute a trade or business under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Can a landlord evict a tenant from a residential building to set up a public charitable dispensary under the ground of personal requirement and own occupation?
  • What constitutes 'own occupation' for personal requirement under Section 13(3)(a) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Sik a Nda R vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 81 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-24Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 686 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-07Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman Khan vs Noor Zaman Khan and Another1977 PLD Lahore 672 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-01
  refereearbitratorjudicial inquiryresiling from agreementcivil revisionpossession of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit for possession of land where the parties had agreed to refer their dispute to a referee under Section 20 of the Evidence Act, with the understanding that the case would be decided based on the referee's statement. The referee, lacking personal knowledge, conducted a local inquiry, recorded evidence, and submitted a written report to the court instead of making a statement in court. Prior to this, the petitioner had applied to resile from the agreement, alleging collusion. The trial court and appellate court decreed the suit based on the report. The Lahore High Court accepted the revision petition, holding that a referee under Section 20 of the Evidence Act must make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief, rather than conducting a judicial inquiry and taking evidence like an arbitrator. Because the referee's report was functionally an award and he was not appointed as an arbitrator, and because the petitioner resiled before any statement was made in court, the courts below exceeded their jurisdiction by relying on the report.

  Questions settled

  • What is the distinction between a referee under Section 20 of the Evidence Act and an arbitrator?
  • Can a referee under Section 20 of the Evidence Act conduct a judicial inquiry and take evidence to make a report?
  • Whether a party can resile from an agreement to refer a dispute to a referee before the referee's statement is made in court?
  • Is a written report submitted by a referee, which is based on an inquiry and witness evidence, legally binding as a referee's statement under Section 20 of the Evidence Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 422 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-22Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad and 2 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-17Read full judgment →
• Sher Ahmad Khan and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 513 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-31Read full judgment →
• Sheikhupura Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. through Its Honorary1977 PLD Lahore 763 · Lahore High Court
  benami transactionfixed deposit receiptgiftresulting trustadjustment of loanpledge of accountsinadmissible document
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment of the Lahore High Court disposes of four connected Regular First Appeals arising from consolidated suits filed by the sons and daughters of Ch. Khushi Mohammad against the Sheikhupura Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. The plaintiffs sought to realize amounts held in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) standing in their individual or joint names, alleging the funds belonged to them. The defendant-Bank contested the suits, pleading that the deposits were benami, made by the father using his own funds, and that the bank was legally entitled to adjust these amounts against substantial loans taken by the father, which were also secured by the pledge of the said FDRs. The trial court decreed the suits in favour of the plaintiffs. Upon appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and held that the source of the funds was exclusively the father, that he retained full dominion over the accounts, and that no valid gifts were established, the plea of gift having been raised merely as an afterthought in the replications. The Court further held that the loans taken by the father and the pledges of the FDRs were duly proved by independent documentary evidence, notwithstanding the inadmissibility of a promissory note for improper stamp cancellation under the Stamp Act 1899. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the trial court decrees, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a fixed deposit opened by a father in the name of his children with his own funds constitutes a valid gift or remains a benami transaction where the father retains dominion over the amount?
  • Does the inadmissibility of a promissory note under the Stamp Act for improper stamp cancellation preclude a creditor from proving the underlying loan and debt through other independent documents and security pledges?
  • Can a bank lawfully adjust deposits standing in the names of children against a loan taken by their father when the accounts are proven to be funded exclusively by the father and pledged as security?
  • Whether an objection as to the mode of proving a document can be raised for the first time in appeal if no such objection was taken when the document was tendered and exhibited before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamir Khan vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 531 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-24Read full judgment →
• Shahid Afzal vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Education, Islamabad and 3 Others1977 PLD Lahore 117 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-16
  film censorshipdecertificationnatural justiceaudi alteram partemspeaking orderquasi-criminal proceedingsright of representation
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition upholding the decertification of the motion picture 'Khatarnak' by the Central Government. The appellant, a film producer, had his film certified by the Censor Board, but it was later decertified under Rule 21 of the Censorship of Films Rules following allegations that uncertified, excised, and unauthorized material was exhibited. The core legal questions involved the scope of the statutory right to an 'opportunity of representing his case' under Rule 21(3), whether principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem apply to administrative and quasi-criminal proceedings resulting in penal consequences or deprivation of livelihood, and whether tribunals are under a duty to render a speaking order supported by reasons demonstrating conscious application of mind. The Lahore High Court held that proceedings under Rule 21 are quasi-criminal in nature, attracting strict standards of proof and the full protection of natural justice. The Court ruled that the authority must give prior adequate notice of all material considered, allow an opportunity to contest adverse evidence, and issue a speaking order containing reasons. As the Central Government acted mechanically on undisclosed material without proper appraisal or application of mind, the decertification notification was declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory right to an opportunity of representing one's case under Rule 21(3) of the Censorship of Films Rules encompass the minimum requirements of natural justice and audi alteram partem?
  • Are administrative or quasi-judicial tribunals empowered to impose penalties or affect livelihoods required to issue a speaking order containing reasons?
  • Can a licensing authority base its adverse decision on extraneous material or evidence not disclosed to the affected party in the show-cause notice?
  • Do proceedings for the decertification of a film under the Censorship of Films Act, 1963 constitute quasi-criminal proceedings requiring strict proof?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Flour & General Mills (Regd.) vs The Province of West1977 P Cr. L J 314 · Lahore High Court · 1967-09-27Read full judgment →
• Shahab Din Ahd 5 Others vs Ch. Muhammad SIDDlUE and Another1977 PLD Lahore 605 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-23Read full judgment →
• Shah Din alias Shakia vs Government of Punjab through Home1977 P Cr. L J 795 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-10Read full judgment →
• SHABBIRConvict vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 166 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-16Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 201 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-30Read full judgment →
• Sh. Zahoor Ahmad vs Sher Ali and Others1977 P Cr. L J 852 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-24Read full judgment →
• Sh. Saeedudin vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore- Respondent1977 PLD Lahore 1091 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-16Read full judgment →
• Sh. Afzal Ahmad vs Ijaz Ahmad and 15 Others1977 PLD Lahore 606 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-13Read full judgment →
• Sethi Straw Board Mills Ltd. vs Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Lyallpur1977 PLD Lahore 71 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-24
  constitutional petitionreinstatementworkman statusdefinition of employergrievance noticeestoppel against statutelabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by an employer challenging concurrent orders of the Junior Labour Court and Labour Court reinstating Respondent No. 3 with back benefits. The employer contended that the respondent failed to serve a mandatory grievance notice under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, fell under the definition of an employer rather than a workman due to delegated supervisory duties, and was estopped from claiming workman status after receiving officer-level benefits and settling accounts upon termination. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the lower decisions. The Court held that for service terminations governed by Section 25-A(6), prior grievance notice was not required. It further held that supervising a single shift rather than an entire establishment does not make an employee an employer under Section 2(c) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. Where an employee primarily performs manual duties, delegating secondary supervisory tasks does not divest him of workman status under Section 2(i). Lastly, there is no estoppel against a statute, and partial settlement of dues does not preclude claiming full statutory entitlements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a grievance notice under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance is required in cases of termination of service governed by Section 25-A(6)?
  • Whether an employee entrusted with supervision and control of a single shift rather than the entire establishment qualifies as an employer under Section 2(c) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Whether the conferment of additional supervisory and managerial duties divests an employee who performs manual work of his character as a workman under Section 2(i) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Whether an employee is estopped from enforcing statutory rights as a workman by receiving benefits granted to officers or by giving a satisfaction note upon receiving partial dues?
  Read full judgment →
• Sattar vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 859 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-05Read full judgment →
• Sarwar and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 748 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-09Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 1085 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-11Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 740 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-15Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs Sarwar and 5 Others1977 P Cr. L J 594 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-15Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ashiq Muhammad Khan Mazari and 3 Others vs Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad and 4 Others1977 PLD Lahore 461 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-22
  revisional jurisdictionFederal Land CommissionLand Reforms Regulation 1972biasnatural justicedelegated authoritypersona designatalimitation periodsuo motu
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by landlords challenging an order dated 13th August 1974 passed by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, which rejected their preliminary objections to revisional proceedings initiated under Martial Law Regulation 115 (Land Reforms Regulation, 1972). The core legal questions pertained to whether the Chairman sitting singly possessed jurisdiction to exercise revisional powers delegated to the 'Chairman and Members' of the Federal Land Commission; whether suo motu revisional powers could be exercised beyond the statutory limitation period on an application by an aggrieved person; and whether public speeches by the Chairman demonstrated disqualifying bias. The High Court held that delegating revisional authority under paragraph 29 to the 'Chairman and Members' required collective exercise, rendering orders passed by the Chairman sitting singly devoid of jurisdiction. Furthermore, revisional jurisdiction initiated upon an aggrieved person's application after the limitation period cannot be converted into a suo motu exercise. Lastly, public statements by an adjudicating authority targeting specific parties create a reasonable apprehension of bias, violating principles of natural justice. The petition was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory revisional power delegated to the 'Chairman and Members' of a commission be validly exercised by the Chairman sitting singly?
  • Does an application filed by an aggrieved person after the expiration of the statutory limitation period permit the revisional authority to treat the proceeding as an exercise of suo motu power?
  • Do public speeches by an administrative official expressing hatred or pre-judgment against specific parties disqualify that official from acting as a quasi-judicial adjudicator on grounds of bias?
  • Does the acceptance of a preliminary objection during writ proceedings render subsequent final orders passed without lawful authority null and void?
  Read full judgment →
• Saraj and 2 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 231 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Saifuddin Saif vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 Others1977 PLD Lahore 1174 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-09
  habeas corpusconstitutional petitionmilitary custodyunlawful detentionjurisdiction barcivilian trial under army actaccusation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed to challenge the arrest and detention of poet Ahmad Faraz by Army Authorities. The key legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the bar to constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199(3) applied, and whether a civilian who is not otherwise subject to the Pakistan Army Act 1952 becomes subject to military law merely upon being suspected or investigated for an offence under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act prior to the formal framing or delivery of a charge-sheet. The High Court held that a civilian becomes 'accused of' an offence within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) only when a formal accusation or charge-sheet is preferred against him. Until that stage is reached, the person does not become subject to the Pakistan Army Act 1952. Consequently, the constitutional bar under Article 199(3) did not apply, and the detenu's arrest and detention by Army Authorities were held to be without lawful authority. The petition was allowed and the detenu was ordered to be released immediately.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 199(3) of the Constitution bar High Court jurisdiction over a civilian before he becomes subject to military law?
  • At what stage does a civilian become 'accused of' an offence so as to be subject to the Pakistan Army Act 1952 under Section 2(1)(d)?
  • Can Army Authorities lawfully arrest and detain a civilian prior to formal accusation or charge-sheet under the Pakistan Army Act 1952?
  Read full judgment →
• Said alias Saidu vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 558 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-29Read full judgment →
• Saghir Hussain Shah vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 78 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-17Read full judgment →
• Safdar Bhatti vs Mst. Rozi Jan1977 PLD Lahore 836 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-02Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Hussain vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 653 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-19Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Hussain vs Ghulam Muhammad and Another1977 P Cr. L J 350 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-26Read full judgment →
• Sadiq and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 529 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-09Read full judgment →
• Sadar, Anjuman-I-Ahmedia, Rabwah vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rawalpindi1977 PLD Lahore 1121 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• S. Muhammad Din & Sons Ltd., Lahore- Petitioner vs Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle I, Lahore and Another1977 PLD Lahore 1225 · Lahore High Court
  sales taxlicencetax exemptiontaxability vs payabilitystatutory rulesvires of ruleslachesparliamentary speechesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a manufacturer of electric fans, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenging the refusal of the sales tax authorities to grant it a licence under Section 8 of the Sales Tax Act 1951, as well as the refusal to refund sales tax paid on partly manufactured goods. The authorities had denied the licence after electric fans were exempted from sales tax, relying on Rule 4(1)(c) of the Sales Tax Rules 1951, which required applicants to be bona fide manufacturers of taxable goods. The High Court analyzed Sections 7 and 8 of the Sales Tax Act 1951, distinguishing between exemptions granted to specific classes of persons and exemptions granted to the goods themselves. It held that where the goods themselves are exempted under Section 7(1), they cease to be taxable goods, rendering the manufacturer ineligible for a licence. Furthermore, under Section 39(4), statutory rules have effect as if enacted under the Act. Lastly, the Court observed that parliamentary speeches cannot alter statutory enactments and dismissed the petition on merits and for laches.

  Questions settled

  • Does an exemption granted to specific goods under Section 7(1) of the Sales Tax Act 1951 render such goods non-taxable, disentitling the manufacturer from obtaining a licence under Section 8?
  • What is the legal effect of Section 39(4) of the Sales Tax Act 1951 on statutory rules framed under the Act when their vires are challenged?
  • Can speeches made by ministers during legislative debates alter the legal effect of clear statutory provisions and notifications?
  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be dismissed for laches when the underlying injury is claimed to be a continuing one?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain Shar and 23 Other vs Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore1977 PLC 1 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain Shah and 23 Others vs Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore1977 PLD Lahore 316 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-23Read full judgment →
• Riaz alias Sarfraz vs THB State1977 P Cr. L J 493 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-24Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ai1mad vs Secretary (Information, Culture and Tourism1977 PLD Lahore 307 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-16
  touring cinemalicensing authoritytemporary licensestatutory controladministrative instructionsconstitutional petitioncinematograph rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a dispute between proprietors of two touring cinemas regarding the legality of temporary operating licenses and extensions granted by the Provincial Government. The core legal questions involve the scope of the Provincial Government's statutory powers under the Cinematograph Act, 1918 and the West Pakistan Cinematograph Rules, 1962, particularly whether the Government possesses inherent administrative or directory powers to independently issue, direct, or extend temporary cinema licenses beyond the mechanisms specifically entrusted to the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner. The Lahore High Court held that the Provincial Government has no independent statutory or administrative power to grant, direct the issuance of, or extend touring cinema licenses outside the express framework provided by the Act and Rules. The Court ruled that the statutory power of licensing vests solely in the District Magistrate, with limited review and extension powers assigned to the Commissioner, and that the term 'control' in section 5(3) of the Act does not empower the Government to bypass these prescribed authorities or make substantive licensing decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Provincial Government have the independent statutory power under the Cinematograph Act, 1918 to grant or extend temporary cinema licenses directly?
  • Can the expression 'control' in section 5(3) of the Cinematograph Act, 1918 be construed to empower the Provincial Government to select licensees or issue binding directives regarding license issuance?
  • Whether administrative instructions issued by the Government can override or expand the licensing powers expressly conferred upon the District Magistrate and Commissioner under the West Pakistan Cinematograph Rules, 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs Muhammad Ismail and 2 Others1977 PLD Lahore 105 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-03Read full judgment →
• Reid. Brigadier Hamid Hussain vs Chaudhry Barkat Ali1977 PLD Lahore 2 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-22Read full judgment →
• Rehmat vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 1069 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-29Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 863 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-25Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The District Tribunal, Sahiwal and Another-s1977 PLD Lahore 341 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-23Read full judgment →
• Schazoo Laboratories Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore1977 PLD Lahore 79 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-01Read full judgment →
• Rashida vs Ghulam Raza and Others1977 PLD Lahore 363 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-05Read full judgment →
• Rashid alias Sheeda vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 581 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-30Read full judgment →