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)
ROHAIL RIZWAN QURESHI VS GLOBE COSMETICS ETC
Summary: Unless the contrary is evident from the record of the case, the High Court could not resolve disputed questions of fact relating to the matters that transpire in the presence of the Presiding officers of courts below of which note had been taken of in the orders recorded by the said courts but the correctness of the said proceedings were disputed by a party to the lis and the said Judge is the final authority as to what takes place before him at a trial. Statement of the Judge must be regarded as conclusive. Statement of the Judge must be considered as absolute verity and the same ought to be taken precisely as a record and must be acted upon in the same manner as on a record of Court, which by itself imports absolute verity. Law has made the Judge the final authority as to what takes place before him at trial, and that authority must be recognized.
MUHAMMAD ASIF JAVAID VS THE STATE ETC.
Summary: Bail granted---The petitioner alleged that Fakhra Bibi, along with co-accused Hadi Raza, was involved in the murder of Muhammad Nasir Javed, her husband. The court scrutinized the evidence, highlighting the initial statement of the deceased recorded shortly after the incident. The petitioner emphasized the delayed statements of two witnesses claiming Fakhra Bibi's confession to the crime. However, the court raised concerns about the significant delay in reporting this alleged confession, casting doubt on its credibility. The court noted the absence of a recorded confession before a magistrate and questions the witnesses' reactions to Fakhra Bibi's confession, pointing out their lack of intervention or reporting of the incident. Regarding the forensic report indicating contact between Fakhra Bibi and her co-accused, the court finds the evidence inconclusive, lacking details about the nature of their contact. The court concluded that the prosecution's evidence is not supported by cogent evidence, and it highlights the Supreme Court's stance that considerations for bail and its cancellation are distinct. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the previous order granting post-arrest bail to Fakhra Bibi.
Malik MEHRULLAH KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT
Summary: (a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)- -S. 6-Act of 'terrorism'-Scope-Courts, for determining the issue whether a case is triable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 or not, are required to examine the FIR (First Information Report), the statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C., the material collected by the investigating agency and other documents available with the prosecution-Inclusion of surrounding circumstances, depicting the commission of the offence, prima facie permits taking into consideration the documents/material, came on to surface with regard to previous enmity or dispute. (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)- -S. 6-Act of 'terrorism'-Scope-Terrorists operate on a level different from that on which ordinary criminals operate, their operations and tactics are different and the offence of terrorism is more connected with the object and design behind an action than with the action itself-Terrorism is not primarily directed against the actual victims themselves who are treated merely as 'collateral damage'-Extent of the actual damage caused or injuries inflicted by the act is not the determinative factor in this regard-Ferocious action against neutrals that had no dogmatic, conceptual or religious aims is just an act of criminal delinquency, a crime, or simply an act of senselessness unrelated to "terrorism". Criminal Appeals Nos.95 and 96 of 2019, Civil Appeal No.10-L, and Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2013 rel. Respondents: None present.
CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, L TU, ISLAMABAD Versus MUHAMMADJA VEDP ARACHA
Summary: (a) Civil service- -Willful absence from duty without authorization-Removal from service converted into resignation-Petitioner was continuously on leave with effect from 1.4.2008 to 1.7.2013 and his application for extension of leave was not allowed, therefore, he was under an obligation to report for duty which he did not do-Petitioner's application for extension also stated that in case his leave could not be extended and he could not be transferred to his native city, his letter may be treated as his resignation-In view of the fact that the department neither extended his leave nor transferred him to his native city, it should have accepted his resignation and relieved him from duty-Action of the department to have waited and thereafter finding the petitioner absent from duty without leave leading to removal from service proceeding against him was not only unnecessary but also without lawful justification-Service Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the order of removal from service was unsustainable, however, in view of the fact. that petitioner had tendered his resignation with effect from 1.7.2013, his resignation from service was to be accepted from the said date-Having admittedly tendered his resignation on 1.7.2013 and having never formally withdrawn the same, no lawful reason or basis was made out to reinstate the petitioner into service-Petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed and leave was refused. (b) Civil service- -Place of service-Prerogative of employer-Government servant was required to serve where his employer wanted him to serve; it was not a choice or prerogative of the employee to claim a right to serve at a place that he choose to serve. Respondents in person.
SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED, KARACHI Versus IMDAD ALI P ATHAN
Summary: IMDAD ALI PATHAN and others-Respondents (Against the judgment dated 07.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court Hyderabad in R.A. No. 61 of 2009) Master and servant- -Employee of Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd ('the company')-Declaratory suit filed by employee against the company-Maintainability-Plea on behalf of company that suit filed by the employee before the civil court was not maintainable for the reason that the company was not a statutory corporation nor any statutory rules of service were applicable to its employees rather the principle of 'master and servant' applied to them and a declaratory suit could not have been filed; that there were concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court where the employee had been non suited for the reason that his suit was not maintainable-Validity-Plea raised by the company regarding rules applicable to its employees had not been elaborately considered by the High Court in the impugned order and it had gone on to consider the law as laid down in the ESTACODE which apparently was not applicable to the present case for that the employee was not a civil servant-High Court has also not considered that there were concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and what need was felt by the High Court to interfere with such concurrent findings had not been addressed in the impugned order-Consequently appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to the High Court to decide the same afresh, in accordance with law.
NAUMAN ALMAS vs The STATE and another
Summary: Summary pending
ADAMJEE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others Civil Petitions Nos 1483L to 1495L of 2018 decided on 2nd July 2020
Summary: Summary pending
Present: Umar Ata Bandial Ijaz ul Ahsan and Munib Akhtar JJ MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN vs MCB BANK LIMITED
Summary: Summary pending
Malik MEHRULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT and 3 others Constitutional Petition No 493 of 2020 decided on 2nd July 2020
Summary: Summary pending
Sheikh ISHTIAQ AHMAD and 7 others vs MUHAMMAD USMAN ALI SHEIKH
Summary: Summary pending