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)
MS.MAIRAJ BIBI ETC VS MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE ETC
Summary: The appeal arisee from a pre-emption suit initiated by the respondents against the appellants. The respondents claimed to be the nephews of the vendor and sought pre-emption rights. The trial court decreed the suit, but it went through a series of appeals, remands, and additional evidence proceedings. The document reviews the history of the case, including the correction of errors in the plaint and issues related to Court fee payment. The respondents argued that they were entitled to pre-emption due to their relationship with the vendor, supported by oral and documentary evidence. The appellants contested the suit on various grounds, including the alleged contumacy of the respondents regarding Court fee payment. The judgment dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. It emphasizes that there is no substantial error or procedural defect that would warrant interference in the findings.
Muhammad Yaqoob Vs Zia ur Rehman M.B.R
Summary: The case involved a dispute over land in Chak No. 220-R.B, Tehsil & District Faisalabad. The petitioner, Muhammad Yaqoob, claimed that the land was allotted to him in 1953. However, the Government of Pakistan exchanged evacuee land with state land in 1958 for the extension of Layallpur Town (Faisalabad). In 1995, the court allowed Yaqoob's writ petitions, directing the issuance of proprietary rights. The Province of Punjab filed appeals, resulting in a partial allowance in 2001. Subsequently, the Punjab government filed a petition in 2015 challenging the initial allotment, alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and illegalities. The Supreme Court converted the petition into a review and remitted it to the Lahore High Court. However, the petitioner failed to appear in multiple court hearings. An inquiry revealed discrepancies and fraud in the alleged allotment, including the petitioner's age and government employment claims. The court concluded that the petitioner obtained the 1995 order through fraud and misrepresentation. Therefore, the 1995 order was reversed, and the application under Section 12(2) C.P.C. was allowed. The court also declared the initial allotment and subsequent orders as non-existent due to the foundational fraud.
Daewoo Pakistan Express Bus Service Ltd through Faisal Siddiqui etc Vs The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan etc
Summary: Daewoo Pakistan Express Bus Service Limited ("Daewoo") filed a petition challenging an Inspection Order issued by the Director Corporatization and Compliance Department of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP). The Inspection Order, issued under Section 221 of the Companies Act, 2017, was based on allegations of mismanagement, illegal activities, and fraudulent actions by Daewoo's management. Daewoo contended that the Inspection Order lacked proper reasoning, was influenced by extraneous considerations, and violated its legitimate expectations of due process. The court analyzed Section 221, emphasizing the need for the SECP to make an informed decision independently and for the officer conducting the inspection to have a fair and open-minded assessment of the material. It highlighted the close connection between Sections 221 and 256, indicating that an Inspection Order could lead to an investigation. The court criticized the SECP's delegation of powers to its officers, raising concerns about potential abuse and lack of checks and balances. The court allowed Daewoo's petition, setting aside the Inspection Order and related letter. It directed the SECP to convene a meeting to review cases where Section 221 powers were delegated, establish objective criteria for such matters, and ensure proper control over delegated powers.
NESTLE PAKISTAN LTD vs MEMBER NIRC and others
Summary: Summary pending
DOST MUHAMMAD vs The STATE and others
Summary: Summary pending
Ayesha Batool Vs Government of KP
Summary: Respondents were directed to grant up-gradation from BPS-16 to BPS-17 to the writ petitioners from the dates of their respective appointments as they were having the qualification of M.sc. in their respective discipline. There is no objection on the eligibility of the petitioners, there is no objection on their performance as they are shouldering the responsibilities of their respective posts since the date of their appointments, besides, it was the responsibility of the respondents to have followed the formalities required prior to processing the appointments and the employees cannot be blamed for any lapses on the part of the appointing authority.
Muhammad Usman & another VS Govt. of KPK.
Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution.(a) While examining the question of vires of statutory rules a High Court cannot sit in judgment over wisdom of departmental authorities, nor can judge the effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by such regulation.(b) Change of recruitment criteria for appointment of various cadres of teachers by doing away with the mandatory requirement of having certificate of teachers training was found intra-vires and validly done.
Zulfiqar Ali Sheera Through His Attorney (Appellant) V/S Shaukat Ali & Other (Respondent)
Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXIII, R. 3---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Appeal--- Compromise--- Suit was dismissed concurrently against which appeal had been preferred---Defendants had filed compromise application with the request to decree the suit against them on their admission of claim of the plaintiff--- Validity--- Compromise application with the clause of two months' time to be given to defendants to vacate suit property from the date of order on the said application had been filed---Two months' time to vacate suit property by the defendants had already expired prior to filing of present application---Terms and conditions of compromise should have already been complied with by the parties during the period of pendency of proceedings---Condition of order of the Court on such compromise was absurd---Decree for disposal of suit/appeal on compromise would not serve the purpose---Appeal on such compromise had become infructuous, in circumstances---Alleged compromise was one sided and contrary to the record and conduct of appellant---Compromise application was dismissed, in circumstances and counsel for the appellant was directed to address the court on merit of the case on the fixed date. Peer Dil and others v. Dad Muhammad 2009 SCMR 1268 rel.
Irfan Masih Vs The State etc
Summary: Inordinate and shocking delay in conclusion of trial not attributable to the accused, entitles him to be released on bail on ground of statutory delay---The petitioner, who was denied post-arrest bail by the Addl. Sessions Judge in a case involving the alleged murder of his wife through arson, has approached the court seeking the same relief. The petitioner contended that the delay in concluding the trial warrants his release under the statutory provisions. He argued that he has been in detention for over two years, and the blame for trial delays lies with the prosecution and the court, especially due to non-cooperation from the complainant party. The court, upon reviewing the trial progress report, notes that the petitioner was indicted in 2014, but there has been little progress in the trial. The court attributed the delay to the prosecution and orders the petitioner's release on post-arrest bail, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial for every accused. Citing a precedent from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the court emphasized that bail should not be denied on hyper-technical grounds when a case of statutory delay is established. The petitioner was granted bail on the condition of furnishing bail bonds, and the trial court is directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within three months.
RELINCE COMMODITIES PVT LTD VS FOP (SECRETARY REVENUE) ETC
Summary: Judgment addressed the maintainability of a writ petition against show cause notices issued by tax authorities. The judgment discussed legal precedents from both Pakistan and India, highlighting the general principle that courts should refrain from interfering at the show cause notice stage unless there is a clear lack of jurisdiction or an abuse of legal process. It emphasized that the mere issuance of a show cause notice does not constitute an adverse action and should not automatically warrant a writ petition. The court stressed that for a writ to be maintainable, it must be demonstrated that the show cause notice was issued without jurisdiction or in violation of a statute. The judgment also underscored the importance of allowing the concerned party an opportunity to be heard before considering judicial intervention. In this specific case, the court finds that the show cause notices were issued without lawful authority, lacking proper jurisdiction, and therefore declares them to be of no legal effect.