Loading... Account
Dark Mode
Step 1 of 8

Welcome!

Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7

Welcome!

Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.

Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)

Husnain Afzal & 7 others Vs Government of Punjab etc

Citation: 2023 LHC 5502

Case No: Service 30999/23

Judgment Date: 25-10-2023

Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court

Judge: Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh

Summary: The enrollment through daily wages, without any prescribed criteria, standards and transparent open procedure, cannot be a route to become civil servant or regular employee in Public Sectors, including the Punjab Local Government Board rather "daily wager" can only be treated as "permanent employee/workman" under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.

Muhammad Javed Shafi etc Vs National Bank of Pakistan

Citation: 2023 LHC 5775, 2024 CLD 518

Case No: Regular First Appeal (R.F.A) (Final Decree) 30994/22

Judgment Date: 25-10-2023

Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court

Judge: Justice Asim Hafeez

Summary: Summary pending

MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS STATE ETC

Citation: 2023 LHC 6139, PLJ 2024 CrC 409

Case No: Crl. Appeal-Against Conviction-PPC 395-21

Judgment Date: 25-10-2023

Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court

Judge: Justice Muhammad Tariq Nadeem

Summary: Consensual intercourse does not fall within the definition of rape rather it is a case of fornication in terms of offence under section 496-B, PPC. Moreover, in case of fornication cognizance can only be taken upon the complaint in the light of section 203-C, Cr.P.C. and not otherwise. It is held that police report cannot be termed as a complaint. Conviction awarded by learned trial court under section 376, PPC is set aside while declaring the proceedings as coram non judice.

Zainab Bibi VS Abdul Aziz

Citation: 2023 LHC 6187, PLJ 2025 Civil (Note) 138

Case No: Civil Revision-Civil Revision (Against Decree) 479-D-01

Judgment Date: 25-10-2023

Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court

Judge: Justice Ahmad Nadeem Arshad

Summary: Summary pending

KHUSHI MUHAMMAD VS MST RAJ BIBI

Citation: 2023 LHC 7640

Case No: Civil Revision-Civil Revision (against Decree)-Declaration 295-13

Judgment Date: 25-10-2023

Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court

Judge: Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh

Summary: Summary pending

vs MULTILINE ENTERPRISES and another Civil Appeals Nos 477 and 478 of 2021 decided on 25th October 2023

Citation: PLD 2024 Supreme Court 81

Case No: Case30127

Judgment Date: 25/10/2023

Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Pakistan

Judge: Ijaz ul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar and Ayesha A. Malik, JJ

Summary: Summary pending

vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence and others Civil Petition No 1026 of 2021 along with CMA No 5076 of 2021 decided on 25th October 2023

Citation: PLD 2024 Supreme Court 576

Case No: Case86092

Judgment Date: 25/10/2023

Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Pakistan

Judge: Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Amin-ud-Din Khan and Athar Minallah, JJ

Summary: Summary pending

ROSHAN ALI vs The STATE

Citation: 2023 YLR 524

Case No: Criminal Bail Application No. 1660/2022

Judgment Date: 25/10/2023

Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court

Judge: Aftab Ahmed Gorar, J

Summary: Summary pending

Quratul Ain Zafar Vs Arsalan Hameed

Citation: Pending

Case No: FOH-HQR/0000311/2022

Judgment Date: 25.10.2023

Jurisdiction: Federal Ombudsperson Secretariat (FOSPAH)

Judge: Fouzia Viqar

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 4 & 5---Jurisdiction---Deprivation of ownership or possession---Scope---Complainant, being co-owner of property in Gulberg Residencia, Islamabad, sold it to Respondent No.1 under a written agreement; while partial payment was made, the remaining amount of Rs.4,500,000/- remained unpaid—Respondent transferred property to a third party without full payment—Held, Complainant had been deprived of ownership and possession of her property through unlawful means, fulfilling the requirements of Ss.4 & 5 of the Act—Complaint maintainable as property situated within Islamabad Capital Territory. (b) Breach of contract versus deprivation of property---Distinction---Mere characterization of transaction as a contractual breach does not oust the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction where deprivation of property rights is established—The Act protects women against loss of property caused by fraud, coercion, or non-payment of agreed consideration. (c) Admission of liability---Respondent’s acknowledgment of default---Respondent No.1’s oral admission before the forum confirming liability and consent for transfer of guarantee property to Complainant established clear deprivation under law—Such admission constituted sufficient basis for relief under S.5. (d) Cooperative Housing Society’s role---Legal obligation to comply---Respondent No.3 (IB Employees Cooperative Housing Society) bound to act on Ombudsperson’s directions to confer title and possession in order to remedy the deprivation of the Complainant’s property rights. (e) Disposition— Complaint allowed; Respondent No.3 directed under S.5 to confer title and possession of the guarantee property (Apartment No.206, Yaseen Arcade, D-Markaz, Gulberg Islamabad) on the Complainant; compliance report ordered by 14-11-2023.

The Officer In-Charge Army Housing Directorate, Karachi v. The Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary Ministry of Defense, Rawalpindi Cantt and others

Citation: PLD 2024 SC 576, 2023 SCP 330

Case No: C.P.L.A.1026/2021

Judgment Date: 25-10-2023

Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Pakistan

Judge: Justice Qazi Faez Isa

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 90 & 99---Executive authority of the Federation---Allocation and transaction of government business---Scope---The Officer Incharge, Army Housing Directorate, filed a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal (CPLA) challenging a High Court judgment regarding a lease agreement executed in favor of the Ministry of Defence---Validity---Held, that the executive authority of the Federation must be exercised in the name of the President by the Federal Government, comprising the Prime Minister and Federal Ministers, and not by any unauthorized department or individual---Under Art. 99(3), the Federal Government is required to allocate and transact its business according to the Rules of Business, 1973, which must be adhered to in all legal proceedings initiated on behalf of the government. ----Cited Cases: Rasheed Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2017 SC 121 (b) Rules of Business, 1973 & Secretariat Instructions, 2005: ----Rr. 5(15), 65, 66, 67, 67-A; Appendix F---Government litigation---Requirement of consultation with Law & Justice Division---Scope---No civil suit or legal proceedings shall be initiated on behalf of the Federal Government without prior consultation with the Law & Justice Division and approval of competent authorities---Held, that Askari Housing and its Officer Incharge had no independent legal status and could not initiate or defend legal proceedings without obtaining the requisite authorization from the competent government authority---The filing of the CPLA without such authorization rendered it not maintainable. ----Cited Cases: Rasheed Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2017 SC 121 (c) Engagement of Private Counsel by Government Entities: ----Requirement of prior approval---Judicial scrutiny---Held, that Askari Housing, as a component of the Federal Government, had no independent authority to engage private counsel without obtaining prior permission from the competent authorities, as required by the Rules of Business, 1973, and the Secretariat Instructions, 2005---The Supreme Court reaffirmed that private counsel could only be engaged under exceptional circumstances where government law officers lacked the requisite expertise, subject to certification by the Attorney General or Advocate General, as established in Rasheed Ahmad case---Failure to comply with this requirement rendered the petition defective. ----Cited Cases: Rasheed Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2017 SC 121 (d) Maintainability of Government-Initiated Petitions: ----Government litigation---Unauthorized initiation of legal proceedings---Effect---The petitioner failed to establish its legal standing as a separate entity authorized to represent the Ministry of Defence in legal proceedings---Held, that if a High Court’s judgment was to be challenged, it had to be done by a legally recognized government entity after obtaining proper approval---The fact that the petitioner had arrayed the Federation and Military Estate Office as respondents implied that they were satisfied with the High Court’s decision, further undermining the petition’s maintainability. ----Disposition: Civil Misc. Application dismissed for non-prosecution. Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal dismissed as not maintainable.

Disclaimer: AI/GPT is not a substitute for legal advice. The content on this website is for research only. In case of breach of T.O.S, PLDB reserves the right to revoke or ban membership at any time without notice. Pak Legal Database ® 2023-2026. All Rights Reserved. Version 4.05.2a. Designed & developed by theblinklabs.com

error: Content Protection Enabled
Scroll to Top