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)
Muhammad Hayat v. The State thr. A.G. KPK & another
Summary: Bail denied---Background:On 5th February 2020, Aurangezb and his nephew Intikhab Alam were asleep in their Hujjra in the precincts of Police Station Mithra, Peshawar.Armed intruders barged in, purportedly searching for Taliban insurgents and their weapons.The intruders subdued the occupants, including children, tied them up, and stole cash, gold ornaments, and a vehicle.The complainant reported the incident to the police the next morning.During the investigation, the petitioner, Muhammad Hayat, was arrested along with a co-accused.Witnesses identified the petitioner in a test identification parade, and he led to the recovery of some of the stolen items.---Issues:Discrepancy in the number of assailants.Alleged flaws in the test identification parade.Lack of apparent motive.The severity of the crime and its impact on the victims.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court found that issues such as the actual number of assailants and alleged flaws in the identification parade cannot be settled at this stage but are to be determined by the trial court based on the evidence yet to be recorded.Despite the absence of an apparent motive, the severity of the crime, including the terror inflicted upon the victims, weighed against granting bail.The Court, exercising discretion, declined to allow the petitioner's request for bail.The petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.
FAMOUS BRANDS (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs SAMSONITE IP HOLDINGS Sarl and others
Summary: Summary pending
HAMEEDA vs The STATE
Summary: Summary pending
MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR SAEED vs DISTRICT JUDGE/PRESIDING OFFICER DISTRICT CONSUMER COURT MULTAN and 2 others FAO No 204 of 2011 heard on 4th June 2020
Summary: Summary pending
MUHAMMAD YASEEN and others vs The STATE and others
Summary: Summary pending
JAVED AKHTAR vs The STATE Jail Petition No 462 of 2016 decided on 4th June 2020
Summary: Summary pending
Dr Altaf Hussain VS FOP etc
Summary: Summary Pending
M/s Taj Medicos (Plaintiff) V/S Public Procurement Regulatory Authority & others. (Defendant)
Summary: The case revolves around the plaintiff's long-standing business relationship with Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) in supplying medicines and medical instruments. Despite the plaintiff's successful track record, they were disqualified from bidding on a contract due to alleged misrepresentation regarding their status with other entities, including Pakistan Navy?s Shifa Hospital. The plaintiff contended that the additional criteria imposed after bid opening were arbitrary and not part of the initial pre-qualification requirements. They argued that their disqualification violated the Public Procurement Rules, 2004, and the principles of transparency and fairness in public procurement. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the decision to disqualify them was illegal, capricious, and an abuse of power. The court set aside the plaintiff's blacklisting and the negotiated awarding of the contract to other bidders. This decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to transparent and fair procurement procedures, as outlined in both domestic laws and international conventions against corruption.
Ejaz Ahmad Vs Rai Muhammad Riaz etc
Summary: This legal case involved a petitioner who was a defendant in a suit filed by respondent No.1 seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell a petrol pump. The petitioner's counsel argued that the suit was rightly dismissed, as an earlier dismissal was restored subject to costs, which were not paid. The application for restoration lacked sufficient cause, according to the counsel. On the other hand, the respondents' counsel contended that the application for restoration was within time and was unlawfully dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge. They argued in favor of adjudication on merits rather than technicalities. The court noted that the suit had been dismissed for non-prosecution twice, and an application for restoration was initially allowed but subject to costs. Additionally, the court highlighted that the application for restoration lacked sufficient cause and referred to Black's Law Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law to interpret the term "sufficient cause." The court found that the term implies a legally sufficient reason and, in this case, the application failed to meet that criterion. In conclusion, the court observed that the suit was not validly restored due to the non-payment of costs, and the application for restoration lacked sufficient cause. As a result, the court upheld the dismissal of the suit.
Munawar Saeed VS JCC
Summary: Subject-matter jurisdiction of the Consumer Court---The appellants filed a complaint under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, seeking compensation for alleged faulty and defective services. The Consumer Court dismissed the complaint, stating that the cause of action accrued at Jeddah Airport, falling outside its territorial jurisdiction. However, the appellate court disagreed with this reasoning. It noted that the Consumer Court misinterpreted the concept of accrual of causes of action and overlooked Section 27 of the Act, which defines the jurisdiction of Consumer Courts. Section 27 provides that a Consumer Court has jurisdiction where the defendant resides, carries on business, where the cause of action arises wholly or in part. The court pointed out that the cause of action is not limited to the place where the alleged breach occurred, but it may extend to other places where a component thereof arose. In this case, purchasing confirmed return tickets at Multan constitutes a part of the cause of action. Despite the Consumer Court's error regarding territorial jurisdiction, the appellate court dismissed the complaint due to the absence of subject matter jurisdiction. It emphasized that no allegations of faulty or defective services were attributed to the airline (respondent No.2). The court exercised its powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code and Section 107 to vary the findings and dismissed the complaints.